Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

Kuwait

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Defence what British troops are left in Kuwait;and what was the total cost of this operation.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Harold Watkinson): The withdrawal of British forces from Kuwait has been completed. The extra cost falling on United Kingdom Defence Votes as a result of the operation is provisionally estimated at about £900,000. There were in addition some local costs which were met by the Kuwait Government.

Mr. Wall: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he is satisfied that British troops are available if the independence of Kuwait should be again threatened, and how much of this very satisfactory operation has been paid for by the Kuwait Government?

Mr. Watkinson: As to the first part of the supplementary question, I would say that, of course, we intend to keep our obligations to the Ruler of Kuwait. As to the second part, the Kuwait Government were generous in paying a lot of the local costs, but I do not think that I can give an accurate figure.

Mr. H. Hynd: Was it not stated earlier that the Kuwait Government were to pay the whole cost of this operation? Does that mean that £900,000 will now fall on the British taxpayer?

Mr. Watkinson: I said in a previous Answer to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) that the cost of the operation would be about £1 million, and the revised figure, which is the nearest that we can get at the moment, is about £900,000.

Mr. Paget: Cannot Kuwait really afford its own rescue?

Mr. Watkinson: There may be some point in that, but, on the other hand, we did what we thought we should do to fulfil a treaty obligation. I do not think that one always sends in a bill for doing that.

Armed Forces (Recruitment Overseas)

Mr. Paget: asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the proposals to recruit outside these islands for the Armed Forces.

Mr. Watkinson: Arrangements already exist under which recruits from overseas can, under certain conditions, join the Armed Forces. Special arrangements have been made for recruitment to the Army in Fiji, the Seychelles and in Jamaica.

Mr. Paget: Why has this taken so long? We have been asking for this for the last seven or eight years. Why do we have to run into a very foreseeable recruiting crisis before we take what seems to some of us a rather obvious measure?

Mr. Watkinson: I do not disagree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that this a good thing to do, and we welcome these men. As to why this was not done before, I would say that this has been in preparation for some time and some of this recruiting has been going on for quite a long time.

Mr. Wigg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that these men can join any arm of the Service?

Mr. Willis: The Black Watch?

Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to put down a Question. I believe that they can, but if he wants a detailed answer, perhaps he will put down a Question.

Mr. Kershaw: Will my right hon. Friend agree that there was little point in asking these people to join the Army while we still had conscription, and that it is only now that we have not conscription that their coming in is so valuable?

Mr. Watkinson: There is much in what my hon. Friend says.

Nuclear Tests

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Defence if he will undertake no more nuclear test explosions for at least twelve months.

Mr. Watkinson: I have nothing to add to the full statement by the Prime Minister on this subject during the debate on the Address.

Mr. Allaun: Would not the declaration of such a halt help towards the agreement which the Prime Minister said that he desired? Secondly, would not the Minister agree that there is a growing danger of more countries beginning to make the bomb, and how can the British Government ask others not to join the club if they continue to make and test the bomb?

Mr. Watkinson: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister described in detail the considerations which govern our policy in this field, and I have nothing to add.

Mr. Mason: In view of our relations in this matter with the United States and the exchange of information, what useful purpose would a British series of tests serve now? Has the right hon. Gentleman's Department made any estimate of what would be gained of military value from 30 megaton and 50 megaton explosions?

Mr. Watkinson: That is really a different question.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Defence to what extent he has studied the recent Russian megaton

bomb tests and the effect of megaton bombs upon the operation of Polaris submarines.

Mr. Watkinson: The implications of these tests are, of course, being studied, but it would not be in the public interest to disclose any conclusions of a military character that we may draw.

Mr. Hughes: But is the Minister aware of an article in the Economiston this question in which it was pointed out that the megaton bomb could affect a Polaris submarine and result in the cracking of its hull? Is it not time now that we realised that this Polaris strategy has also become obsolete?

Mr. Watkinson: That is the hon. Member's view. It is not mine.

Mr. Rankin: What is the right hon. Gentleman's view?

United States Deputy Secretary for Defence (Conversation)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on his recent consultations with the United States Deputy Secretary for Defence.

Mr. M. Foot: asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on his recent conversations with Mr. Gilpatric, United States Deputy Secretary of Defence, regarding a common policy on the supply of nuclear weapons to the West German army.

Mr. Watkinson: My meeting with the United States Deputy Secretary for Defence was one of the series of informal meetings between N.A.T.O. Ministers dealing with the defence field in which we exchange views on questions of common interest. On this occasion the main item of our conversation was interdependence in the weapons and equipment field.
The question of the supply of nuclear weapons to the West German army did not arise.

Mr. Rankin: In the course of his conversations with Mr. Gilpatric did the right hon. Gentleman tell him that Great Britain was bearing a disproportionately high share of the total burden of Western defence, as pointed out in the White Paper of 1957? If the right hon. Gentleman still believes that, why is he going


to call up those conscripts who are the youngest and the least able to resist conscription?

Mr. Watkinson: That is quite a different question. Mr. Gilpatric. no doubt, had taken note of the recent statement by N.A.T.O. that this country's foreign exchange burden, as a result of our fulfilling our N.A.T.O. commitments, is a very heavy one indeed.

Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman says that his conversation with Mr. Gilpatric was informal, but is he not aware that the week before conversations had taken place between Mr. Gilpatric and the West German Government and that announcements were made about agreements reached about the supply of nuclear weapons to the West German Government? The right hon. Gentleman says that this matter did not arise in the conversations, but does he not think it was his duty to raise such an important matter and to report to this House what proposals the Government agreed to about the supply of nuclear weapons to Germany? Does he not realise that the peace of the whole world may depend on this subject?

Mr. Watkinson: I do not accept at all the hon. Gentleman's view of what arrangements have been made between the American Government and the West German Government as necessarily the correct one. Anyway, my Answer was perfectly correct;that is to say, this matter was not discussed.

N.A.T.O. (Aircraft)

Mr. Strachey: asked the Minister of Defence whether there is a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation requirement for the development of a vertical take-off and landing fighter and/or strike aircraft;and whether such an aircraft would be equipped to deliver conventional, or tactical nuclear, weapons in the first instance.

Mr. Watkinson: The N.A.T.O. authorities, and a number of N.A.T.O. countries, are considering the application of the vertical take-off and landing principle of future aircraft. The details of any such aircraft are classified N.A.T.O. information which I am not able to divulge.

Mr. Strachey: But would not the Minister agree that the development of this type of aircraft is of critical importance for the supply of our forces in a conventional role, and that if we are going to take the doctrine of the pause seriously, then tactical aircraft of this type and others would become the most critical arm?

Mr. Watkinson: I do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman at all on this. N.A.T.O. does need conventional backing in aircraft as in other things, but what I cannot say is the actual detailed specifications which N.A.T.O. is discussing. What I can say is that our own vertical take-off aircraft, the Hawker, I hope, is one of the ones N.A.T.O. will consider very seriously.

Mr. Eden: Would my right hon. Friend, having mentioned the Hawker 1127, take into account the fact that this aircraft is flying now? Would it not be advantageous, not only to the British aircraft industry but also to the Royal Air Force, if a limited number at least of them could be supplied now to the Royal Air Force to give operational experience? Is it not possible that an improved version of the 1127 could well fit the bill for N.A.T.O., far better than any new and alternative aircraft?

Mr. Watkinson: No. I think there is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. As he knows, the West German Government have already joined us in the development of this aircraft. I take careful note of what he says about the support for this project which would arise from a reasonably early order from the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Chetwynd: As there is a general feeling that the claims of the British aircraft industry have been by-passed in relation to supplies to N.A.T.O., can the right hon. Gentleman push not only the claims of the Hawker aircraft but of Short's, too, on the question of V.T.O.L. aircraft?

Mr. Watkinson: Certainly. I mentioned that aircraft only for the very reason that it is the first one flying, but the lift-engine type to which the hon. Gentleman refers is just as important and will be pushed just as hard.

Mr. Strachey: asked the Minister of Defence whether Valiant aircraft allocated to the support of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces are equipped to deliver conventional weapons while Canberra aircraft allocated to the support of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces in Europe are equipped to deliver tactical nuclear weapons, and while there is no North Atlantic Treaty Organisation requirement to equip them for any other role;and whether he is satisfied with this arrangement.

Mr. Watkinson: All the Valiant and Canberra aircraft in the bomber force assigned to SA.C.E.U.R. can carry either nuclear or conventional weapons. Most of this force is held immediately available to use nuclear weapons as required by NA.T.O. but, as circumstances require, elements of it are equipped for conventional weapons. I am satisfied with this arrangement.

Mr. Strachey: Does not this arrangement suggest that we are doing very little more than paying lip-service to the doctrine of the pause? After all, the Canberra aircraft is the immediate strike aircraft and, even if there is no requirement, would it not be possible to use this initially in a conventional role? Is that not a very serious situation and does it not show that the NA.T.O. doctrine has not been revised at all? Surely this is something which ought to be given very serious attention?

Mr. Watkinson: I quite agree, and perhaps I may just add that at the present moment there is an element of the Canberra force—not a very large one, but an element—which is in fact equipped for the conventional rôle.

British Forces, Germany

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Defence to what extent the cost of maintaining British forces in Germany will increase during the coming year.

Mr. Watkinson: By a little more than 10 per cent. on present plans.

Mr. Lipton: Does that take into account the application which the right hon. Gentleman has made to the N.A.T.O. assistance board for a supplementary grant, and does not the fact of this application having been made show that we

have bitten off more than we can chew? Large bites without teeth seem to be a permanent feature of our defence policy.

Mr. Watkinson: I do not think I follow the hon. Member's views of our defence policy. I would only say that after a fair and impartial examination NA.T.O. has accepted what is true, and that is, that we play our full part in the alliance and that it is a very heavy burden on our foreign exchange.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Minister of Defence if he will now withdraw British forces from Western Germany, in view of the refusal of Britain's allies to begin negotiations with a view to coming to a reasonable settlement of the Berlin crisis.

Mr. Watkinson: I do not accept the implication in the second part of the hon. Member's Question. The answer to the first part is "No, Sir."

Mr. Zilliacus: Is it not a fact that the West German Government refuse to accept any recognition of Eastern Germany or of the Polish frontier or any form of disengagement, or to change the status quoin West Berlin? Are we really to be dragged into war by allies who do not agree with us on how to make peace?

Mr. Watkinson: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. In any case, that type of question should be put down to the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, not to me.

Neutron Bomb

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Defence what plans Her Majesty's Government have for the manufacture of a neutron bomb.

Mr. Watkinson: It would not be in the public interest to make any statement on plans for the manufacture of specific types of nuclear weapons.

Mr. Hughes: Has the Minister seen the report which came from Washington on 2nd November, that rays from the neutron bomb can penetrate through three feet of concrete? What is he going to do to strengthen 10, Downing Street and the Ministry of Defence?

Mr. Watkinson: That is quite another question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put it down.

Mr. Warbey: Does what the right hon. Gentleman has just said apply also to preparations for the manufacture of chemical and bacteriological weapons?

Mr. Speaker: That does not arise on this Question.

Mr. S. Silverman: asked the Minister of Defence what proposals have been submitted to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation by the United States Government concerning the testing of a large neutron bomb whose principal new contribution to nuclear strategy is its alleged capacity to kill people without damaging property.

Mr. Watkinson: I have no knowledge of any such proposal.

Mr. Silverman: Has not the right hon. Gentleman seen frequent and quite authoritative statements that the United States is preparing at this moment to test such a bomb? Does he not think it worth while to make some inquiry to see whether this is so? Does he realise that, if such a test were made, this would be represented in many parts of the world as the final triumph of capitalist priorities? Will he undertake that the United Kingdom would never undertake itself, or be associated, with genocidal mania of this kind? Will he inform the United States, or ask his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to do so, that we would not regard such a weapon as compatible with the maintenance of our alliance with any Power that tested or used it?

Mr. Watkinson: I have no knowledge of all the allegations the hon. Gentleman is making, and our general position on tests was clearly set out by the Prime Minister the other day.

Mr. Silverman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the terrifyingly unsatisfactory Answer given by the Defence Minister, who seems quite unable to appreciate the importance—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have had repeatedly to ask the House to confine notice to the traditional phraseology. We experience great difficulty in getting on with Questions, and I need the help of the House in these matters.

Mr. Silverman: I apologise, Sir, if I was improperly disturbed by the Minister's callousness, but what I want

to do is to give notice to raise this matter at the earliest possible opportunity.

Strategic Mobility

Mr. Mulley: asked the Minister of Defence what plans he has for increasing the strategic mobility of United Kingdom forces.

Mr. Watkinson: This is one of the factors which is being examined in the preparation of next year's Defence White Paper.

Mr. Mulley: Is the Minister of Defence not yet aware of the chronic shortage of suitable transport aircraft of all kinds, and, in particular, of the lack of suitable strategic air freighters for use now? Is that something about which he will do nothing while waiting for the Estimates next year?

Mr. Watkinson: I think that the hon. Member knows of the Government's decision to place an order for five new transport jet aircraft.

N.A.T.O. Strategy

Mr. Mulley: asked the Minister of Defence to what extent paragraph 12 of the White Paper on Defence, 1958, remains the basis of Her Majesty's Government's defence policy.

Mr. Watkinson: The paragraph to which the hon. Member refers accurately describes N.A.T.O. strategy at the time the White Paper was written. Since then N.A.T.O. strategy has been under review but so far no changes have been agreed.

Mr. Mulley: Does the Minister say that this is still the policy, or is it not? As I understand the statements of the President of the United States and of leading N.A.T.O. statesmen and generals, they cannot square the present N.A.T.O. policy and never could square it with the terms of this paragraph.

Mr. Watkinson: That is quite a different matter. What I have said is that there has been, of course, a long and detailed discussion of N.A.T.O. policy to seek to bring it up to date with current strategic and technical considerations. We joined in that and I said in the


House the other day that, as I understand General Norstad's new plans which are not yet approved, they are very close to current British thinking.

Mr. Strachey: The right hon. Gentleman has made a serious statement which must be interpreted as meaning that the old ultra-nuclear strategy is still in force. There has been discussion on it but no revision of it whatsoever. Surely this is the gravest possible statement. Cannot the right hon. Gentlemen tell us that the British Government are now pressing very hard indeed for a revision of this? Is he not aware that the strategy of paragraph 12 of the 1958 White Paper does not square at all with all the statements of President Kennedy and Ministers here and many other public statements? Surely it is high time that there was a revision of this strategy.

Mr. Watkinson: I quite agree that discussions in N.A.T.O. ought to be concluded as quickly as possible, and we are certainly not holding them up.

Mr. M. Foot: Does the right hon. Gentleman thus confirm that the present strategy of N.A.T.O. is that in certain circumstances we should use the H-bomb first? Does he really mean to say that this is also one of the subjects which perhaps he did not discuss with Mr. Gilpatric when he was in this country? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the Government should do something about it instead of committing themselves to this absurd proposition?

Mr. Watkinson: The Government have made plain on many occasions that we will never be the aggressors. That is perfectly clear to everybody. The Government have also made it perfectly plain, and I must make it so now, that the degree of retaliation to aggression is a matter which must be settled in the circumstances of the time, and we are not going to announce beforehand any particular degree of retaliation.

N.A.T.O. (British Forces)

Mr. Paget: asked the Minister of Defence what further redeployment of the air, sea and land forces of the Crown he is proposing in order to strengthen Great Britain's contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Mr. Watkinson: The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware, from measures already announced, that a carefully prepared plan for reinforcing our N.A.T.O. forces is in hand. I have no statement to make at present about further redeployment.

Mr. Paget: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "in hand"? The only thing that we could discover was in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday which seemed to indicate that it was weaker still.

Mr. Watkinson: There has been a clear announcement of the various reinforcing measures that we are taking. For example, we have already sent our first guided missile regiment to Germany to reinforce B.A.O.R. It is being followed by two of our most modern anti-aircraft regiments and there are a good many other measures as well.

Mr. Wigg: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the antiaircraft regiments that went to Germany were fully equipped with the most modern equipment?

Mr. Watkinson: I think that in general they are as fully equipped as they could be.

Mr. Wigg: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that both regiments were equipped with"Yellow Fever"?

Mr. Watkinson: That is quite a different question and I have no intention of answering it off the cuff.

Royal Air Force (Transport Aircraft)

Mr. Cronin: asked the Minister of Defence what consultations he had with the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for Air before approval was given to the order for five Vickers VC 10 aircraft for the Royal Air Force Transport Force, having regard to the present limited ability of this Force to move heavy equipment for the Army over long distances.

Mr. Watkinson: There were full consultations before the order was placed. The VC 10 is required primarily to transport men. The Belfast has been ordered to transport heavy equipment over long distances.

Mr. Cronin: Has the right hon. Gentleman not sufficient authority to prevent air marshals from ordering luxury jet aircraft to transport themselves round the world when the desperate need of the transport force is for freight-carrying long-distance aircraft such as the Belfast and the Lockheed CI 30? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that freight-carrying aircraft can also carry passengers, though not in luxury?

Mr. Watkinson: I agree with the hon. Member's last point. The VC 10 is not ordered to carry senior officers about but to carry a very large number of men very quickly, which is exactly in accordance with need.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the country requires both types of aircraft as soon as it can get them, and with particular emphasis on freight-carrying?

Mr. Watkinson: I agree, but the VC 10 is ordered as a quick and massive transporter of large numbers of armed men quickly about the world.

Mr. Mulley: Has the right hon. Gentleman not a sense of priority? While all additional transport aircraft are welcome, we are reaching the point when we can carry men but not arms. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his present policy will mean that the men will find that they have neither the weapons with which to fight nor the additional support and that their transport will move men only?

Mr. Watkinson: I do not agree. The Britannia is valuable as a long-haul heavy aircraft.

Mr. Cronin: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it has far too small a cargo cross-section?

Mr. Watkinson: That is why the Belfast is coming along to carry the heavy arms.

Personnel (Hong Kong)

Mr. Cronin: asked the Minister of Defence what consideration he has given to reducing the number of Service personnel stationed in Hong Kong.

Mr. Watkinson: As the House knows, the deployment of our forces overseas is at present under review as part of the re-examination of the defence programme.

Mr. Cronin: Will the Minister bear In mind that Hong Kong is probably indefensible by any number of troops that employ conventional weapons against determined Chinese aggression, and that a large part of that very large garrison kept in Hong Kong could be used more profitably in defending Western Europe against Russian or East German aggression?

Mr. Watkinson: That is the hon. Member's view, but we have no intention of scuttling out of any bases.

Mr. Dance: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that any withdrawal of our troops from Hong Kong would have a very grave effect on the morale of our people out there? Would he not agree also that our friends in Australia and New Zealand would be very upset if that took place?

Mr. Watkinson: The answer to the Hong Kong question is that there is a very serious internal security problem there, as the House knows, and we must make sure that we keep forces there to deal with that problem. I agree that we cannot hope to keep enough forces there to fight the whole Chinese Army.

Mr. Mayhew: Apart from internal security, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these forces have an operational role, and if so, what it is?

Mr. Watkinson: I am not going to say in the House exactly what role any forces have anywhere. I have given the general indication that we must certainly keep forces in Hong Kong to handle the internal security problem efficiently, and that is all I intend to say.

Mr. Eden: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the maintenance of forces there is a most valuable guarantee of security and stability there? At the same time, while maintaining a constant force, would he give consideration to the possibility of requiring a shorter length of stay for most Service men in the territory?

Mr. Watkinson: I will certainly examine that. I think that might be a good idea.

Mr. Mason: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the primary purpose of troops in Hong Kong is solely for internal security and that there are far too many there merely for that purpose? What is the purpose of the surplus in Hong Kong?

Mr. Watkinson: I have nothing to add to what I have said.

Mr. Strachey: Will the right hon. Gentleman resist pressure from his hon. Friends to keep British forces in places for purely prestige reasons where there is no operational role for them and maintain only those forces for which there is a rational role for internal security?

Mr. Watkinson: What I hope to do is —having taken the best military and political advice I can get—to take what I think are the right decisions.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

University Students (Grants)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that substantial differences exist between grants to university students in England and Scotland respectively, and that these differences are to the disadvantage of Scottish students;and if he will take steps to rectify this and to improve the position and prospects of Scottish students in these respects.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): It has not been found possible to eliminate entirely disparities in students' maintenance allowances over the whole of Great Britain until the completion of the full-scale review of students' expenditure at present being undertaken by the Standing Advisory Committee on Grants to Students. It is hoped that, as a result of this review, equality of treatment over the whole of Great Britain will be secured by the introduction of new rates in October, 1962.

Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the recommendations on this subject in Cmnd. 1051, and will he

reconsider them, in consultation with the heads of the Scottish universities, with a view to achieving better co-ordination, and more justice for Scottish students?

Mr. Maclay: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate from my reply that we are moving in the direction he wants as fast as we reasonably can.

Mr. Woodburn: In reconsidering this matter, will the Secretary of State be very careful to see that any change made does not reduce the number of Scottish students who are able to go to Scottish universities by not allowing the amount to be spread over the maximum number of students available?

Mr. Maclay: That is a point I shall certainly have in mind.

Mobile X-ray Units

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state to the latest convenient date the number of mobile X-ray units for the detection of disease in operation in Scotland; where they are located; and what steps he is taking to increase the number.

Mr. Maclay: There are at present nine mobile X-ray units in Scotland. Four are in Glasgow, two in Edinburgh and one each in Aberdeen, Dundee and Motherwell. With the drop in the incidence of tuberculosis, there are limits to the effective use of these units, and the present number is adequate.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the Secretary of State agree that the number and distribution of these mobile units does not accord with the present distribution of population in Scotland, and will he reconsider the whole matter on that basis?

Mr. Maclay: I do not think that the distribution of population is necessarily the right way to dispose of the units. What we are trying to do now is to dispose of them where their need is still visible, and there are certain sections of the population on whom we want to keep a close watch through this method.

Mr. Manuel: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether he has studied the position of the whole of


the West of Scotland being covered by the Glasgow units? We know that, in the past, there has been a high incidence of tuberculosis in the western and southern counties; is he satisfied that that cover is sufficient?

Mr. Maclay: Yes, on present information I am satisfied.

Sheriff Court, Dunoon (Prosecutions)

Mr. W. Baxter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons appeared before the Sheriff of Argyll during the period January-September, 1961; what were the charges against them; how many were convicted; and what were the penalties imposed.

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member is, I understand, referring to cases taken in the Sheriff Court at Dunoon. I regret that detailed information of the kind which he desires is not readily available, but I am ready to discuss with him what it is practicable to obtain.

Bonnybridge-Larbert Bypass

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he has in mind to speed up the flow of road traffic between Fife and Glasgow, particularly on the section from Larbert Cross to the new dual carriageway at Cumbernauld.

Mr. Maclay: I hope to authorise a start on the Bonnybridge and Larbert bypass in about two years' time. The necessary trunk road Order has been made.

Mr. Gourlay: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that there is a tremendous lack of urgency evident in his Answer? Does he not agree that the frustration created among car drivers who are compelled to do "the creep" behind the modern "desert caravans" of slow-moving lorries is one of the major factors in creating serious road accidents? Will he not, therefore, do something to get a speedier start made to this very necessary development?

Mr. Maclay: I am aware, from very personal experience in recent weeks, of the problems on this section of road to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I am afraid that this must take its place

amongst the other priorities. We cannot do everything we should like to absolutely simultaneously.

Apprentices (Day Release)

Mr. Millan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the decision of Glasgow Corporation to ask contractors tendering for building work valued at £10,000 or over to supply details of their apprentices attending day-release classes so that it can be determined whether they are properly fulfilling their obligations for apprentice training;and if he will ask other local authorities and public bodies to do the same so as to encourage increased use of day-release facilities.

Mr. Maclay: This is a suggestion which has been made to a Committee of the Scottish Technical Education Consultative Council, and I would prefer not to anticipate its report.

Mr. Millan: Is not this a perfectly simple question? Is not this also a very effective if simple way of encouraging day release? Why should we have to wait for a report which, I understand, deals with other matters as well? Why cannot we have action on this matter now?

Mr. Maclay: There are arguments on both sides in this matter. For example, there is some doubt whether a practice of this kind would, normally speaking, be consistent with the general rule that contracts should be awarded after open competition. It is not so simple as it appears at first sight.

Mr. T. Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman has, I think, agreed that day release is a good thing. Should he not, therefore, take every step to help it?

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Gentleman knows that I do think that day release is a good thing but, as I have tried to point out, this matter is not quite as sample as it would appear at first sight. I thought it was simple until I studied it very carefully.

Glen Nevis Hydro-Electric Scheme

Mr. Millan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the names of those objectors to the Glen


Nevis Hydro-Electric Scheme who represented to him that the public inquiry should be delayed until the publication of the Mackenzie Committee Report.

Mr. Maclay: The National Trust for Scotland and, through it, nine amenity and recreational organisations— whose names I shall, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Millan: Could the Secretary of State say why he accepted these representations? Is not the question of amenity a separate one from that of the economics of hydro-electric generation? Why could not the important question of amenity have been disposed of one way or the other, even though the final decision on the scheme could not have been taken until after the Mackenzie Committee had reported. Why must the decision be delayed?

Mr. Maclay: Originally, I was under the impression that the amenity arguments could be treated on their own merits, but it was later made clear to me by some of the amenity organisations that their arguments could not be fully deployed without reference to the Report of the Mackenzie Committee, and in the light of the principles underlying the Franks Report. I came to the conclusion that the Glen Nevis inquiry must be delayed.

Following is the list:

The Co-operative Holidays Association.
The Grampian Club.
The Lomond Mountaineering Club.
The Scottish Council for National Parks.
The Scottish Mountaineering Club.
The Association of Scottish Climbing Clubs.
The Scottish Rights of Way Society.
The Scottish Youth Hostels Association.
The Youth Hostels Association (England and Wales).

Mr. John MacLeod: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the Glen Nevis Hydro-Electric Scheme is being delayed until after the Mackenzie Committee has reported.

Mr. Maclay: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) on 23rd October.

Mr. MacLeod: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is a very unsatisfactory

reply? The holding up of these hydroelectric schemes is preventing the development of the country's natural resources to deal with these problems of peak-load through the ever-increasing demand for electricity. Thermal stations can never replace that, apart from the wider issue of retarding the development of Highland economy.

Mr. Maclay: My hon. Friend is entering highly technical arguments. I understand that the Board's proposal to bring forward the 120 megawatt oil-fired steam set at Dundee will met the Board's generating programme.

Mr. Willis: Can the right hon. Gentleman say to what extent the plans of the Hydro-Electricity Board for future development have been dislocated as a result of the halt in capital expenditure? What costs will this involve for the Board?

Mr. Maclay: The arrangements to enable the Hydro-Electricity Board to proceed with the preparatory work on further schemes mentioned in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire, should obviate delay in proceeding with any further hydroelectric developments which may be approved after the Mackenzie Committee has reported. I cannot answer the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question without notice.

Mr. MacLeod: When does my right hon. Friend expect the Mackenzie Committee to report?

Mr. Maclay: I am informed that it may not be possible to report to me until the middle of next year.

Hydro-Electric Capital Projects

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether all Scottish hydro-electric capital projects are to be held up until the Mackenzie Committee has completed its investigations; and when he expects its report.

Mr. Maclay: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) on 23rd October.

Mr. Woodburn: Is not the Secretary of State aware that this little body of brewery and distillery people who raised the original objections has really no


standing in Scotland sufficient to cause the hold-up of a scheme like this? Is he not aware that the Mackenzie Committee is being flooded out by a mass of material, all of which is already known to and understood by the right hon. Gentleman's own advisers; and that it has become a quite superfluous investigation, which is holding up the development of essential Scottish electricity supplies?

Mr. Maclay: I cannot accept, for once, almost anything that the right hon. Gentleman has said. The representations that have led to the postponement of the Glen Nevis inquiry have come from the large number of amenity organisations which I have just described, and I just could not accept the right hon. Gentleman's implications in any part.

Milk (Iodine Content)

Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will authorise the immediate distribution of dried milk for children since the concentration of iodine in milk in Scotland has now far exceeded an acceptable dose as defined by the Medical Research Council.

Mr. Maclay: The recommended limit of 130 micro-microcuries per litre relates to the radiation dose that is acceptable in milk consumed over a period of a year. For shorter periods, I am advised by the Medical Research Council that proportionately higher doses are not dangerous, and that a situation giving rise to concern has not been approached anywhere in Scotland or anywhere else in the United Kingdom.

Miss Herbison: Is the Secretary of State aware that in the first report we were given here the dose was 190 in Scotland and in the second report, 178; and that the Medical Research Council has said that higher doses over a shorter period could cause damage? Can the right hon. Gentleman really assure us that these higher doses in Scotland, particularly for babies, are not already causing damage? Is he quite certain of that?

Mr. Maclay: The figure of 178 micro-microcuries per litre of milk in Scot-

land, to which the hon. Lady refers, referred to a period of only three weeks and therefore represents a radiation dose which is very much less than that given by a level of 130 micro-microcuries per litre over a whole year, and I am assured that no harm need be feared from present levels of contamination observed in Scotland.

Mr. Brewis: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that everything possible is being done to watch the level of iodine in milk, and to warn parents? Does not he agree that alarmist statements on this subject do very great harm to the entire Scottish dairy industry?

Mr. Maclay: A very close watch is being kept on the position, and the Government will not hesitate to act if, on the advice of experts, any occasion for action should arise. I am glad of the chance to make the statement that at the moment I am advised that there is no danger.

Mr. Grimond: What is the most northerly point at which testing for radiation is being carried out? A certain amount of anxiety has been caused by a statement that there has, for instance, been no testing in Shetland, which is believed to be an area in which comparatively high levels have been reached.

Mr. Maclay: I should like notice of that question.

Mr. Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this high figure for Scotland is not very reassuring, bearing in mind that it is the average? Would it not be better and more realistic to break the figures down into the various regions? This would give a truer picture of the varying levels in Scotland.

Mr. Maclay: I must be advised by scientific experts on the best way to make a technical presentation of information which is difficult to present technically and accurately. I am informed that the averages normally used make full allowance for the variations there can be in different areas.

Fall-out (Shelters)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number of shelters in Scotland now available for protection against fall-out.

Mr. Maclay: No shelters have been built at public expense specifically to give protection against fall-out, but about 14,000 last war shelters still exist in Scotland, which would give some degree of protection.

Mr. Rankin: That is a terrible answer. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have seen the shelters he is talking about. They are in such a state in my division—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is the time for questions, not for speeches.

Mr. Rankin: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman's Answer provoked me. Is the Secretary of State aware that the Minister of Defence, who was recently with us, depends on the massive deterrent to make shelters unnecessary? Did not he hear the Minister declare that the massive deterrent is something which he is now thinking about again? Is the right hon. Gentleman telling us that the Government's policy is to offer no protection whatever to the people of Scotland against the dangers of fall-out of which we have been hearing so much?

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member is trying to drag me into debate on the principles of defence policy. If he studies my Answer carefully, he will find that it answers the Question on the Order Paper.

Law of Intestacy

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he proposes to introduce legislation to amend the law of intestacy.

Mr. Maclay: As the hon. Member is aware, there was not time to introduce a Bill on succession in either of the last two Sessions of Parliament, and, in view of the claims of other Measures in the Government's programme, I can give no undertaking to do so during the current Session.

Mr. MacPherson: Can the right hon. Gentleman at least give an undertaking that it is still his intention to introduce this Bill, even at some far distant date?

Mr. Maclay: I know that this matter has been under consideration for a considerable period, but it is not of the very highest urgency and it represents changes in very long-standing laws. I could not undertake at this moment to say when it would be possible to introduce it.

Mr. T. Fraser: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that, two years ago, in the Gracious Speech, he promised this legislation? Will not he come clean with the House of Commons and tell us that he has shelved this legislation at the request of the Scottish Landowners' Federation?

Mr. Maclay: Not at the request of anybody. There are difficulties, and this is a subject on which there are profound differences of view. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, time in the Scottish Grand Committee for Measures of this kind is not too plentiful at the moment.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why, when I brought in a Bill on this subject last Session, the Government blocked it?

Mr. Maclay: I am afraid that, offhand, I cannot remember any details of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Bill.

Housing (Interest Charges)

Mr. Hoy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what would be the total interest charges on a house costing £1,500 built in October, 1951, with money borrowed from the Public Works Loan Board; and what would be the corresponding figure for a house built today.

Mr. Maclay: If the authority concerned raised a 60-year loan at Public Works Loan Board rates, the annual charge for the October, 1951, loan would be £54 4s., compared with £106 17s. for the same loan raised today.

Mr. Hoy: In view of the intolerable burden that this places on local authorities, due to the high interest rate policy of the Government, when is the right hon. Gentleman proposing to do something about it instead of attempting to compel tenants of municipal houses to carry the burden, not of the houses, but


of the interest charges which must be paid back to the moneylender?

Mr. Maclay: These matters were debated recently and will, no doubt, be debated again. It is not easy, in Question and Answer, to deal with matters of this kind.

Mr, Hoy: That is not an answer. Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, even judging by the figures which he has given, in a year the interest rate on these houses has doubled for every year they have to be paid for? What policy has he for dealing with this problem instead of always compelling tenants to pay more?

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Gentleman knows our subsidy policy very well. He is also aware that we do not believe that artificially low interest rates for one section of the people is the right way. We believe that there should be housing subsidies, and that these should be fully debated on the Floor of the House.

Hospitals (Houses)

Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has made to the Treasury Valuer on the assessments of houses attached to hospitals.

Mr. Maclay: As the Treasury Valuer is willing to consider any representations put to him by hospital authorities, there is no occasion for representations by me.

Miss Herbison: Is it the case that in no instance has the Secretary of State or the Joint Under-Secretary of State made representations to the Treasury Valuer? The people concerned are intensely worried about the future amounts they will have to pay. Can the right hon. Gentleman say when they will be told whether or not a change is to be made in the assessments of these houses?

Mr. Maclay: In answer to the first part of that supplementary question, to the best of my knowledge no individual representations have been made by myself or by my hon. Friend to the Treasury Valuer. If I am wrong in saying that, I will inform the hon. Lady. I could not say when the Treasury Valuer will be able to come to his conclusions on some of the cases put to him.

Miss Herbison: Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows whether the answer is "Yes" or "No". I asked a specific question: what representations has he made? Surely there should be no doubt in his mind about whether or not he has made representations.

Mr. Maclay: I am sorry. I am afraid that I misunderstood the hon. Lady. My original answer was correct. I was not certain whether there was some other implication which I did not grasp from her original Question.

Royal College of Science and Technology, Glasgow

Mr. T. Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the general public discontent with his proposals for the Royal College of Science and Technology in Glasgow; and what steps he is taking to allay the discontent.

Mr. McInnes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that his draft scheme for the management of the Royal College of Science and Technology, Glasgow, has created general discontent; and what action he proposes to take to have the matter reviewed.

Mr. Maclay: No, Sir. Since the draft scheme was published on 19th September, only the Scottish Trades Union Congress has sent me any observations on it. If anybody has objections to the scheme, they should send them to me as soon as possible.

Mr. Fraser: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the considerable correspondence in Scottish newspapers, together with well-informed answers, from a large body of well-informed opinion in the country, which takes the view that, if we are to make a breakthrough in our educational techniques, particularly in science and technology, the time has come for him to recommend an improvement in the status of this college to that of university?

Mr. Maclay: This matter is out-with the draft endowment scheme, which is without prejudice to further developments on the academic side, which are for the University Grants Committee in the first instance.

Strathclyde Hospital, Motherwell (Out-patient Department)

Mr. Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now give the date of commencement of building at Strathclyde Hospital, Motherwell, of the new out-patient clinic.

Mr. Maclay: The Western Regional Hospital Board now proposes, that the new out-patient department should be provided as part of a new general hospital at Strathclyde Hospital. I have still to approve the siting of the new general hospital, and it is, therefore, too early yet to forecast when building work on the hospital or on the out-patient department will begin.

Mr. Lawson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that the original starting date for this out-patient clinic was 1962? Does he also recall that he sent me a letter, dated no later than last November, stating that the plan had not been changed? Is he aware that in eight years the number of patients using this clinic has doubled, and that every specialist who has to use the buildings says that it is deplorable for that purpose? Will he ensure that the original starting date of 1962 is maintained?

Mr. Maclay: I appreciate the hon. Member's concern, but this has been a most complex problem for a great variety of reasons. I think that the hon. Member will agree that if the final decision is that the main hospital should be on that site, it will obviously be right for the new out-patient department to form an integral part of the new hospital, as it will be a major user of the main diagnostic and other services of the hospital.

Mr. Lawson: I was assured that there was no question but that the polyclinic, or out-patient clinic, would go there irrespective of the decision about the hospital. May I take it that there is no question of a change of opinion about whether the out-patient clinic is to be built?

Mr. Maclay: There are two separate problems, depending on whether the hospital goes there. I will write firmly to the hon. Member giving the latest position on both points.

Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act, 1954

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the difference in severity which may result between a fine and the period of imprisonment imposed in default of payment, he will take steps to amend the periods of imprisonment laid down in Section 49 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act, 1954.

Mr. Maclay: The periods of imprisonment laid down in Section 49 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act, 1954, are maxima within which the sentencing court may decide what period should be imposed in default of payment of a fine in the circumstances of each case before it. I have no proposals for amending legislation at present.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider some of the periods of imprisonment which have been imposed in the Dunoon area? For instance, is he aware that in a recent and not untypical case, when a fine of £15 was not paid, the imprisonment awarded was sixty days? Is not that, on the one hand, an open invitation to anyone seeking martyrdom and, on the other, an inequitable amount of imprisonment for anyone genuinely concerned with conscience?

Mr. Maclay: It would not be proper for me to comment on decisions of any court of law. However, I understand that in some of the cases the court has exercised its discretion and has imposed various periods within the statutory maxima.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Piccadilly Area (One-way Working)

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Transport if he is now in a position to state his conclusions on the experimental one-way working carried out in the Piccadilly area.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): Yes, Sir. I have reviewed this experiment and consulted both the Metropolitan Police and the local


authorities concerned. We are all agreed that it was valuable, and I propose to try a further experiment, with a number of improvements based on experience. It will start on 27th November and continue over the Christmas period. It should assist the heavy Christmas traffic. It will also help me, in deciding on longer-term arrangements for this area, to see how this scheme stands up to so severe a test.
I am placing in the Library copies of a plan and a Press notice giving some further details of the new experiment.

Visitors From Overseas (Driving Licences)

Commander Kerans: asked the Minister of Transport why, under his regulations, a visitor's driving licence can be issued without it being ascertained whether the holder is proficient in driving by United Kingdom standards.

Mr. Marples: A licence of this kind is only issued to a visitor from overseas arriving in this country without a foreign driving permit or international driving permit who is prepared to sign a declaration that he is authorised to drive in his own country.
I have these arrangements at present under review.

Commander Kerans: I am not quite clear about how in a recent case someone who arrived in this country was given a driving licence after only ten hours' experience of driving in this country, with the result that there was a fatal accident. Will my right hon. Friend look into the whole question of reciprocal agreements with other countries on this very important matter?

Mr. Marples: I am looking into it, but it is obligatory on this country, under an agreement reached at the United Nations Conference on Road and Motor Transport, in 1949, to which we are a party, to provide such facilities. British visitors to other countries receive reciprocal advantages. In the case my hon. and gallant Friend mentions, which received great publicity, the girl in question knew that the declaration which she made in order to get a visitor's licence was false. However, I agree about the importance of agreements on the matter and I am looking into it.

Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a man who has obtained a driving licence in a foreign country, or in one of our Colonies, is permitted to drive here without passing a test in this country?

Mr. Marples: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me details, when I will consider them.

Goods Vehicles (Brakes)

Commander Kerans: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will take steps to revise and increase the statutory requirements regarding tests of lorry brakes and similar vehicles.

Mr. Marples: The law requires all vehicles to have brakes sufficient under the most adverse conditions to bring the vehicle to rest within a reasonable distance; I am at present reviewing these requirements to see whether any further strengthening is necessary. My officers have authority to examine goods vehicles at any time, and can therefore check brake efficiency as well as other factors affecting road safety.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Electrification, Kent

Mr. J. Wells: asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made with the electrification, under the capital development plan, of railway lines in Kent in the past year; and what improvements to railway fences were made at the same time.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): The British Transport Commission tells me that by last month all railway lines in Kent had been electrified, with the exception of the lines from Tonbridge and Ashford to Hastings, and the Isle of Grain branch, which are not included in the scheme for electrification. The fencing has been brought up to the standards required by our Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways.

Mr. Wells: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the news about electrification. Is he aware that the farming community and every parent in Kent is extremely perturbed about the state of the fencing? Does he know that his statement about


the fencing being brought up to standard is not in accordance with the experience of the National Farmers' Union? Further, is he aware that the fencing within half-a-mile of where there was a fatal accident earlier this year is still said to be in a deplorable state? Will my hon. Friend go into the matter more closely as soon as possible?

Mr. Hay: I am informed that we have not recently received representations from the National Farmers' Union about the fencing of the electrified lines. As I said in my original Answer, the fencing adjoining the electrified lines in Kent has been brought up to the standard required by our Chief Inspecting Officer. However, if there is a particular case which my hon. Friend would like me to look into, I will certainly do so.

Mr. Wells: Will my hon Friend look into not one case but a list of at least twenty which I have in my hand?

Mr. Hay: I had better see the list.

Mr. Popplewell: In view of the general concern about electrification as a whole, will the hon. Gentleman consider preparing a graph, or some other indication, showing the state of progress of electrification compared with the last reappraisal of the modernisation work of the railways?

Mr. Hay: I will consider that, but I doubt whether progress in electrification lends itself to graphical presentation in the way in which the hon. Member suggests. However, I will look into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Highway Construction and Maintenance (Grants)

Sir B. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport what action has been taken by him, in accordance with the recommendations made by local government organisations, to set up a working party to examine the whole subject of grants for highway construction and maintenance, including their adequacy.

Mr. Marples: In March of this year I set up a working party to consider certain proposals about highway grants which had been put to me by the local authority associations. The working party includes representatives of the associations.

Sir B. Janner: When does the Minister expect the recommendations of the working party to be made? Will he seriously consider the points raised by the organisations concerned?

Mr. Marples: I have given such serious consideration that we have set up this working party. The matters involved are of considerable complexity and detail. The present state of play is that a meeting has been held and the working party has agreed on its terms of reference, discussed several of the proposals, and agreed that the next step should be for the associations to prepare a memorandum on two of the items. We are now awaiting that memorandum from the associations.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Nuclear Propulsion

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement about the proposed construction of a nuclear-powered merchant vessel: what is the earliest date on which such a vessel could be launched; and what would be the approximate cost.

Mr. Marples: The tenders received by my Department from industry for a nuclear reactor suitable for installation in a merchant ship have been examined in detail by the Committee on the Application of Nuclear Power to Marine Purposes and also by its Technical Committee, and the Government have carefully considered the matter in the light of the advice received from these Committees.
This advice shows that while it would certainly be technically feasible to build a nuclear-powered ship now, nuclear propulsion for marine purposes does not offer sufficient economic promise to justify building a merchant ship at the present time. The Government have, therefore, decided that the right course in present circumstances is to authorise a vigorous programme of research, aimed at a reactor system which is economically attractive to a wide range of shipping. The programme will be carried out by the Atomic Energy Authority in conjunction with industry.

Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a considerable body


of opinion which feels that little more progress can be made until a prototype is at sea? Will not the decision he has announced make Britain even more backward in this new research? Will he publish a White Paper setting forth the arguments for and against a prototype?

Mr. Marples: I will consider the last suggestion of my hon. Friend, but at the moment no country in the world has a nuclear reactor which is economic as far as shipping is concerned. I am sure that the major break-through will be to the country which first finds that reactor.

Mr. Strauss: It is very difficult for laymen to come to any judgment on these highly technical matters, but can the right hon. Gentleman say why there has been so much delay in coming to this decision? Is it not the fact that tenders were first sought about two years ago? Surely we could have had some decision about the value of the tenders long before now?

Mr. Marples: As the right hon. Gentleman said, this is a matter of great complexity, and it is for that reason that the decision has been delayed.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is it not regrettable that in the present depressed state of the shipbuilding industry this decision has been arrived at, and is not this the very development which would put us once again in the forefront of world shipbuilding? In view of the failure of the Cunard order going to the North-East, is it not time that something like this was given in the North-East to take its place?

Mr. Marples: I do not think that it will help shipping or shipbuilding in this country unless we can make it economically viable. If we start having marine propulsion which is not an economic proposition, I do not think that it will help us in our competition against countries abroad.

Mr. Popplewell: In view of the long delay which has occurred, can the right hon. Gentleman say how long he expects it to be before some conclusion is arrived at? This continuing delay is very serious, and it appears that there is to be further delay, inevitable perhaps, but has the Minister any idea how long it will be?

Mr. Marples: I am afraid that it is never possible in scientific research to say when a conclusion will be reached. These are primarily matters for my noble Friend the Minister for Science.

GHANA (VISIT OF HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now make a statement about the visit of Her Majesty the Queen to Ghana.
I told the House on Monday that I thought it right that my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary should pay a second visit to Ghana. This he has done and he returned to this country this morning. My colleagues and I have now had from him a full appreciation of the position based on his personal inquiries on the spot.
As I told the House on Monday, Her Majesty's safety is and must be our first consideration. Of course, no Royal tour is without risk. Her Majesty knows this as well as any Member of the House. She has never been deterred in undertaking previous tours because of the personal risk to herself, which is inevitable, especially when great crowds are assembled. Happily, she has come triumphantly through these trials with the enhanced affection and admiration of all.
After considering carefully and anxiously all the information before us, collected and assessed by those best qualified to do so, the Government have reached the conclusion that the degree of risk attaching to this tour is no greater than that which has been present in many of her previous journeys.
There are those who will ask how this conclusion can be reconciled with the explosions which have taken place in Accra during the last few days. That was one of the questions which was in the forefront of my mind when I decided that it would be right for my right hon. Friend to visit Ghana again. He has given us his first-hand assessment of the significance of these incidents. While he was in Accra he took the opportunity to tour the Royal route in company with President Nkrumah and he saw for himself the unmistakable friendliness of


the crowds. We have also had throughout, as I have said, the expert advice, based on thorough investigation on the spot, of those in this country best qualified to do this sort of work. We have had the ready co-operation of the Ghanaian authorities.
I can assure the House that on the information and advice available to them the Government have formed the view that the explosions do not indicate any intention by those concerned to perpetrate acts of violence during the Queen's visit which would endanger Her Majesty's safety. We have, therefore, no reason to fear that this journey will involve any special and additional risk to Her Majesty's safety.
On the other hand, there can be no doubt the cancellation of this visit, so long promised and so eagerly awaited by the people of Ghana, would seriously impair the invaluable contribution made by Her Majesty's journeys towards the strengthening of the ties which bind together the many peoples of the Commonwealth.
Her Majesty's Government have, therefore, advised the Queen that she should proceed with her visit to Ghana. We are, of course, at once informing other Commonwealth Governments, with whom we have been in touch throughout.
May I, therefore, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the whole House, send Her Majesty our warmest good wishes for the success of her West African tour and a safe return.

Mr. Gaitskell: The decision as to what advice to offer Her Majesty in connection with her visit to Ghana is one which can be taken only by Her Majesty's Government, and all that the Opposition, and, indeed, the rest of the House, can do is to be sure that every possible inquiry has been made. It is, I think, perfectly clear from the Prime Minister's statement and the visit of the Secretary of State for the Colonies that this has been done, and in the circumstances all that remains for us to do is to join the Prime Minister in wishing Her Majesty a very happy and very successful tour.

Mr. Turton: Is it not peculiar that the Commonwealth Governments have not been asked to approve the decision,

which many people throughout the Commonwealth will regard as subjecting Her Majesty to unnecessary risks? Can the Prime Minister explain the procedure under which Her Majesty, as Head of the Commonwealth in this matter, has to accept the advice only of the Prime Minister of this country? May I, at the same time, join my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman in wishing Her Majesty god-speed on her journey.

The Prime Minister: We have been in touch with all the Commonwealth Prime Ministers. I have sent them personal messages, and I think I can say that no Commonwealth Government has expressed a contrary view.
The purely constitutional question, which is somewhat involved, I set out last Tuesday. The House will remember that the original visit was to have taken place in 1959. At that time Ghana was a monarchical State and Her Majesty would constitutionally have been advised by the Ministers of that State. Ghana has since become a republic and, therefore, the responsibility was assumed by Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom in this case, as in the case of India and Pakistan, and that procedure has been followed, and, as far as I know, accepted by all Commonwealth Governments.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Is the Prime Minister aware that even those of us who have been most anxious that the Queen should not go to Ghana are now foremost in wishing the best for her safety, and have always been convinced that the great majority of the people of Ghana would give her a most tumultuous welcome, the warmth of which could not be exceeded anywhere?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that what the House has said will give the greatest pleasure to the Queen. Of course, we have all been anxious, as the right hon. Gentleman properly said, and the risks have to be weighed as best we can. All the life of royalty and the tours of Her Majesty involve considerable risks. She accepts them proudly. I am sure that the House will give her the greatest sense of strength in her task.

Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we all appreciate the responsibility that lies on his


shoulders for giving advice, and the responsibility similarly lying upon the shoulders of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations? Although criticisms may be voiced in this House about particular features of the Administration in Ghana, is it not now clear that, both in this House and in the British Press, very inaccurate statements have been made about the support of the people of Ghana for the Administration there? In view of those circumstances, is it not desirable that upon the occasion of the visit of the Queen it should be made clear that all the people of this country wish well to Ghana in her future and in her relationship to this country?

The Prime Minister: The first part of what the hon. Member has said raises questions not suitable for this occasion. Her Majesty is Queen and Head of the Commonwealth, and she serves as a symbol of unity and helps to create it. I am sure that the concluding sentence of the hon. Member, added to the other remarks which have been made, represents the views that we all share.

Sir S. Summers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the background to the decision of the Government that he has just announced, expressed as he has expressed it, will go a very long way to allay the uncertainties and fears of many people in this country?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said, and for his anxiety. I am sure that what he has said will be very helpful to us all.

TANGANYIKA INDEPENDENCE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.43 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I have it in Command from the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The task of moving this Second Reading is a very happy legacy from my predecessor, who was in charge of the Colonial Office at the time when the major decisions were taken. This is a very important moment, both in the history of East Africa and in the development of our relations with the peoples of that area. Tanganyika is the first East African territory to obtain independence within the Commonwealth, and it is also the largest of those territories.
This country's connection with Tanganyika has lasted only a little over forty years. I need not rehearse in any detail the circumstances in which we became responsible for the peoples of Tanganyika, and how Tanganyika was one of the first territories to be placed under the trusteeship system of the United Nations, but I am sure that it is right for me, in moving the Second Reading, to pay a tribute to the remarkable work done by servants of the Crown in this territory in the years during which this country has held responsibility.
It is a very fine chapter in our record of administration of overseas territories. It is also a cause of great satisfaction that so many British civil servants and advisers will continue to be available to the Government of Tanganyika after independence, through the signing of an agreement under the Overseas Services Aid Scheme.
At this stage, we should also pay tribute to those people outside this country who have worked for the welfare of Tanganyika, and particularly to the interest taken in the work of our administration by many other people from the United Nations, especially those who have made up visiting missions to Tanganyika and those who took an interest in the progress of the territory within the Trusteeship Council.
I should like to look briefly at the history of events that have led up to the moving of this Second Reading. There was the very successful conference in Dar-es-Salaam, in March of this year, at which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House presided, which paved the way for independence. Subsequently, in June, there was another conference in London, following which the date of independence was advanced from 28th December to 9th December, and when, at the same time, it was announced that Her Majesty the Queen would be represented at the independence ceremonies by His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. This caused a great deal of pleasure to the peoples of Tanganyika.
The discussions in London which took place in June, which settled the final date of independence, were really on two main points. The first was about the future of the East Africa High Commission, and it is most encouraging that agreement was reached on the continuation of the extremely valuable work of that High Commission in these new circumstances, by the new organisation to be known as the East African Common Services Organisation. I am sure that it is essential that these territories should continue and expand this form of economic co-operation that has been of such value to the peoples who live there.
Also, we should note that the agreement that was reached this summer made possible the participation in the new organisation of the elected representatives of the people of these territories to a greater extent than was true under the East Africa High Commission, so that in taking steps to consolidate the advance made there on the economic side we are also, in a way, developing a possible basis for a wider and more general form of association between

these territories. It must be for the people of East Africa to decide the ultimate form in which they work together, but I am certain that the House would feel that the closer they can work together, both politically and economically, the better it will be for everyone in these countries and also for us, and anything that lays the groundwork or the foundation for that position we should welcome.
The other matters discussed at the meetings in the summer were the final details of independence and the question of financial aid after independence. As the House is aware, there was a good deal of discussion on the question of the financial settlement, but the details of the offer finally announced by my predecessor to the House on 4th August, described by Mr. Nyerere as completely satisfactory, recognise the responsibilities of this country and the proper claims of Tanganyika. I am glad that this settlement was reached.
That, briefly, is the background which led us to the point at which we have arrived today. Now we have the Bill which I am presenting. I must apologise for the haste with which we have to deal with the Bill. We do not want to hurry the House on these matters, but it is quite clear that if we are to meet the requirements of the independence date which has been generally agreed it is very important to pass the Bill in all its stages as quickly as possible. I am sure that all hon. Members would agree on that.
Hon. Members will have noticed that the Bill makes provision for Tanganyika to become independent within the Commonwealth. That is very important. The House is aware of the nature of the Commonwealth and the qualifications for membership, and there has been no meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers since the decision was taken to grant independence to Tanganyika.
As the House is aware the national Assembly passed a motion in June which asked us to legislate for Tanganyika's independence and requested the other Governments of the Commonwealth to join Britain in supporting Tanganyika's desire to become a member of the Commonwealth. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has heard from all the Prime Ministers, his colleagues, that their


Governments would be ready at the appropriate time to accept Tanganyika as a full member of the Commonwealth as from 9th December.
There is one other point, that is the question of the United Nations. As Tanganyika is a Trust Territory we have to seek the approval of the United Nations for the termination of the Trusteeship Agreement. In April of this year a resolution to this effect was introduced by Cyprus, the newest member of the Commonwealth and was supported unanimously by the General Assembly. There is to be a new resolution to amend the date from 28th December to 9th December. That is proceeding through the United Nations, having been adopted by the Fourth Committee. It is still to be considered by the General Assembly, but I do not think that there can be any question that it will be unanimously approved.
The present Bill follows in general the precedents of other territories achieving independence. It does not, of course, contain the independence constitution. That will appear in an Order in Council, at present in an advanced stage of preparation, of course with the fullest collaboration and consultation with the Tanganyika Government. The Order in Council itself cannot be made until the Act has received the Royal Assent, but it will be laid before the House as soon as it has been made.
Apart from one or two points of drafting, the Bill follows very closely the pattern of previous Bills. Clause I provides for the basic fact of independence by providing that Acts of this Parliament in future will not extend to Tanganyika. Clause 2 deals with the question of citizenship which is rather complicated and it is necessary to carry out our part of the processes determined by Acts to be passed by the Tanganyika Government in determining their own citizenship.
Under Clause 2, anyone who, under the Tanganyika citizenship law, becomes a citizen of Tanganyika will, by virtue of that citizenship also possess the status of a British subject and Commonwealth citizenship. The Clause also covers the withdrawal of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies from people who become citizens of Tanganyika automatically, if they have no

substantial connection with the United Kingdom or its remaining dependencies, but preserves that citizenship in the case of persons who have such a connection. Also, persons who are at present British protected persons by virtue of their connection with Tanganyika will not lose their status as such until they acquire Tanganyikan citizenship. The House will find that these provisions follow closely similar provisions which were approved in the case of Nigeria and Sierra Leone.
Clause 3 and the Second Schedule deal with the modification of various United Kingdom enactments which are really consequential. In fact, they are very similar to what has been approved by the House in the past.
Clause 4 is a little different. It is a finance Clause and it is designed for two purposes. There is, first, the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation which the Tanganyika Government have decided to maintain in existence and to use as the major instrument of its agricultural policy. I am sure that we can give some assistance to them in this purpose. We therefore propose that we should relinquish all rights to any former Overseas Food Corporation assets in Tanganyika. Clause 4 contains provisions to that effect. It was also agreed during the discussions on finance to which I referred earlier, to continue the financial aid at present provided under the Act of 1957 until September, 1962, that is the end of the five-year period during which assistance up to a total of £500,000 can be given to the Corporation.
The other purpose of Clause 4 is connected with the East African Common Services Organisation, to which it has been possible to give financial assistance under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act. By the Clause we are making the necessary arrangement to ensure that that aid can be continued under the new organisation which has been made necessary by reason of the independence of Tanganyika.
As I said, the principal purpose of the Bill, which, I am sure, will commend itself to the entire House, is to implement our promise that Tanganyika will achieve her independence on 9th December. It is really a machinery provision for carrying out an act of policy already


accepted and welcomed on both sides of the House. If I may, I should like, as I am sure is right on this occasion, to pay a tribute to the many people who have contributed to the extremely happy and satisfactory development in this part of East Africa.
There have been many people from Britain who have laboured in the service of Tanganyika to whom I referred earlier, but I should like to make special mention of Lord Twining, who was Governor from 1949 to 1958, and to Sir Richard Turnbull, the present Governor. I think it particularly satisfactory that the Prime Minister of Tanganyika, himself such an outstanding figure, has asked me to submit Sir Richard Turnbull's name to Her Majesty, when the Bill has received the Royal Assent, to be appointed as the first Governor-General. That is a form of continuity very much to be welcomed.
I have nothing else to say other than that I am sure the entire House wishes Tanganyika, this new nation, and its distinguished Prime Minister and distinguished Leader, Mr. Nyerere, every possible success and prosperity.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: I rise with very great pleasure and pride on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends to offer our fullest support for the Second Reading and all the other stages of this Bill, which will bring independence to Tanganyika.
If I, as a Welshman, may be permitted to say so, there is something typically English in the way we do these things in the House of Commons. During the ten years since 1955 we have witnessed and taken part in what I think is one of the greatest events in history, the transformation of an Empire into a Commonwealth. At the end of the war, in 1945, there were over 600 million people in the British Empire living under colonial rule. Upon the passing of this Bill that figure will be down to 20 million, and I do not think it too much to hope that even people of my age may live to see the day when the whole Empire will have been transformed into a Commonwealth.
I certainly join in the good wishes to Tanganyika. As the Secretary of State

has said, in this Measure we are doing what we have done before so many times in recent years, which is to agree unanimously to the decision required so that a territory may become independent. But we have done something else as well. Tanganyika is one of those countries which came to us as a consequence of the First World War and the formation of the old League of Nations. It was, of course, German East Africa and became our Mandated Territory after the First World War. On the formation of the United Nations it became a Trust Territory. Today, we can say that that trust has been fulfilled. We have done our job and our duty. We have been faithful to our trust and now Tanganyika becomes independent.
I agree with the Secretary of State that Tanganyika is one of the best examples of the ordinary peaceful transition from dependence to independence. It is of real significance as we witness what is still left of the Empire on the way towards independence. When we have solved this problem there are two problems which remain. There is still the problem of what is to happen to the very small countries for whom independence in the full sense of the term can become almost meaningless. My hon. Friends and myself have given some thought to this problem and I should like the House to have a day for the discussion of how we envisage the future of very many small territories, scattered all over the world, which want to be independent. They want to enjoy equal status and to be independent.
That is one problem. The other is the problem of the multi-racial communities. I say to all peoples in East and Central Africa, "You could not do better than to emulate the example of Tanganyika. "Here is a country in which there has been close and continuous co-operation among the races, among Africans, Europeans and Asians. Their leaders have shown a very great example to all the others. If the leaders of these three main communities which we find in so many countries in East and Central Africa follow the example of the Africans, Europeans and Asians in Tanganyika, some day we shall have the pleasure of considering a Bill of this kind for them, also. This is an example to follow.
I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the two Governors who have played a decisive part in recent years. Lord Twining—Sir Edward Twining as we knew him—and Sir Richard Turn-bull. I was very glad to hear that Sir Richard is to become the first Governor-General. I think that the Governors, the European and Asian leaders and everyone who knows Tanganyika would agree that this afternoon we ought to pay the greatest tribute of all to Julius Nyerere, who has shown such an outstanding example of leadership.
Perhaps the House will allow me to recall the first time that I met him. It was only seven years ago and that fact is significant. It was the last occasion on which I was in Tanganyika. The then Governor, Sir Edwin Twining, now Lord Twining, said to me, "I want you to meet a young man, a teacher, who has just entered politics. If I am not mistaken he is destined to play a vital role in the future of this country. "He added that, to be typically British, he had invited him to have a cup of tea with me. That was the first time I met him and from that first moment I was deeply impressed by his personality, his graciousness, his ability and integrity.
I have met Mr. Nyerere many times since and have followed his career with very great interest. Lord Twining was not mistaken. The young teacher whom I met seven years ago in Dar-es-Salaam, I shall Shortly be able to salute as the first Prime Minister of his nation. I am sure that we would all want to show to him our deep appreciation of his leadership and to offer him the very best wishes in taking office as Prime Minister of his country.
This is the end of one era and the beginning of another. While we have all been joining in felicitations we ought to give a moment to the realisation of the burden we are placing upon the people of Tanganyika. Think of the burden which this young Prime Minister, the Government and the people, will have to carry. Here is a vast country, four times the size of these islands, with a population of under 10 million and half the country is uninhabitable. It still has to be tamed and brought under cultivation when we have found the answer to the tsetse fly. I wish that we

could devote a tithe of the money which we are spending on trying to go to the moon to making life better for people on this earth. Think what can be done when we have conquered the tsetse fly and brought the whole of this vast territory with its unknown wealth into cultivation and made it open and ready for human habitation.
This is a tremendous burden. As has been said, it is a great revolution. We sometimes talk about this great revolution as the rise of nationalism, but it is a rise of expectation. They will expect a higher standard of life. They will expect their political independence to be clothed with rising standards. What a job they have before them, confronted as they are in Tanganyika with man's ancient enemies, poverty, hunger and disease, in some respects at their worst. I hope that we shall all think, and say that we think, in wishing them well in obtaining independence, that our interest in them will not cease from that day but will continue and increase.
It is our privilege and duty, and in our own interests, to see that these countries which come forth into nationhood and which we endow with our Parliamentary institutions and, I hope, with the spirit of our democracy, shall become truly founded on strong foundations so that they can prosper and succeed. I am very glad that the East African High Commission and the Colonial Development Corporation are to continue their work. I thought it very short-sighted policy to take away CD. and W. assistance from the countries which need it so badly. The least we could do would be to say that for a period of ten years we should continue to help them in these ways.
These countries, Tanganyika in particular, are confronted with this tremendous job of taming their countries and building up their standard of life. It is sad to think that almost on the eve of attaining independence they are corn-fronted with famine in some of their provinces. In three of the Central Provinces and some Provinces in Tanganyika remote from Dar-es-Salaam there is famine because for two years the rains have failed. There are close upon half a million people who have come near to starvation. From the evidence


so far available, starvation has only just been warded off.
We all join in paying tribute to the United States of America, which has sent generous gifts of food, maize and dried milk, and helped considerably in preventing what could have been a calamity on the eve of the celebration of independence. This, however, has placed a tremendous burden on the country merely in the task of distributing the food which has come from the United States of America to Dar-es-Salaam to the peoples who are in such desperate need. Distribution costs will amount to £¼million and other emergency work f¾million. The whole emergency will cost the Government of Tanganyika anything between £1 million and £2 million.
I make a plea to the Secretary of State and the Government in which I am sure all hon. Members on both sides of the House will join. Do not let us, at this moment of celebration, be mean and allow this poor country to carry this great burden by itself. We—representatives from every party in the House— have approached the Secretary of State on this matter. He was very kind to receive us at short notice and we placed the position before him. It is true that the financial arrangements were reasonably satisfactory. I am not saying that there was any kind of claim made, but this is more than a claim. Let us make it a fine gesture.
We generally send a tribute to an emergent country and it takes a tangible form. Let us send this tribute to Tanganyika. If this work is to cost Tanganyika £1 million in distribution and emergency work of all kinds, let it come out of funds made available partly by us as the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Are we to say to this small country that we cannot help? I hope that I carry the whole House with me in this. In reply to a Question by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) yesterday, the Secretary of State was good enough to say that he will consider the matter. We all hope that he will consider the representations we have made.
I hope that before we celebrate Tanganyika's independence day, on 9th December, the Colonial Secretary will say that the Government have again

considered this question and have decided, as a further token of our good will and good wishes, to make a substantial contribution towards the cost of this emergency.
Let us start them off in this way. We know that although starvation has been avoided the people who have lived through this misfortune will never be the same again. Anybody who knows anything about these things knows that an experience of this kind leaves its mark on the physique,, the vitality and the virility of the people. What we should be doing is to speed up the development of the social services, in particular, to wipe out the effects of this famine as quickly as possible. It would be wrong for the House simply to pass the Bill and to wish Tanganyika well without bringing to the notice of the country the grim facts which Tanganyika faces on the eve of independence.
I join the Secretary of State in saying to the Prime Minister, the Government and the people of Tanganyika,"We wish you well. We give our pledge that all that it is within our power to do to help you will be done freely, because it is a privilege to help you build the fine nation which you deserve in Tanganyika".

4.12 p.m.

Sir Roland Robinson: I rise briefly to support the Bill and to join hon. Members on both sides of the House in giving our good wishes to Tanganyika, so soon to be independent. All those hon. Members who have had the good fortune to visit that country like the country and like its people. There are few among new countries which have built up such a reservoir of good will here and throughout the free world among people who are interested in the future of the emerging territories.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) that Tanganyika is a very fine example of the orderly way to independence. It has been an example in the past, and in my belief, with the leadership which it has today, it will continue to be an example in the future. Tanganyika has been a fortunate country in many ways. Perhaps one of the outstanding points is that its own people get on well with each other and that the country is free from


tribal jealousies and rivalries of the kind to be found in other countries.
Moreover, Tanganyika has a small and cosmopolitan European population who mix easily and who have set up no kind of colour bar at all. When I was last in Tanganyika I found that one of the most pleasing features which I found anywhere in Africa.
The third point is that since the end of the First World War Tanganyika has had a very devoted Civil Service, the members of which in a way were also very cosmopolitan, because when we took over the administration from the Germans the civil servants were recruited from all over the Colonies, and they brought with them a wealth of varied experience. It is right to express the hope at this time that those who have done so much to serve Tanganyika will have a happy future and will be properly looked after by our own Government and by all who are in a position to give them some help.
If we look at the history of our administration in Tanganyika we find that we have been fortunate to have so many distinguished men of good will who have helped. I go as far back as the very distinguished Colonial Governor, Sir Donald Cameron. It is not often realised that Sir Philip Mitchell, before he went on to Kenya, rendered great service to Tanganyika, or that it was the late Sir Charles Dundas, who, as a district officer, was the man to provide the inspiration to get going the great coffee industry in the Moshi area.
On the private side, Sir William Lead gave leadership and was for nearly fifteen years the leader of the unofficial members of the Legislative Assembly. At the same time, he was one of the great pioneers of the sisal industry. Men like that have played a great part with their energy, industry and good will in helping the people of Tanganyika. Lord Twining was Governor for an unprecedented period of nearly nine years and did a wonderful job.
Tanganyika is particularly fortunate in being served at the moment by Sir Richard Turnbull as Governor, and to have leadership on the African side from Mr. Julius Nyerere. All of those who know him believe that he is one of the great African statesmen and we

have the greatest confidence in any country led by a man like that. The right hon. Member for Llanelly referred to the financial question. It is good that at this time there is a man with such keen financial acumen as Sir Ernest Vaisey to handle the financial affairs.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the famine and of the need to help Tanganyika at this stage, and I think that he will have the ready response from both sides of the House. It is one of the most important things for this country that we should remember that we have a duty to help the newly emerging countries in the early days of their independence. Following the Tanganyika famine, in my opinion such help is more than ever necessary at this time. I do not suggest to the Government exactly how it should be done. The point is that we believe that help should be given and the help will be thrice blessed if it is given quickly.
Tanganyika must have a good future, because there have been years of preparation from devoted men of great capacity. In my opinion, it is now in good hands. In the course of time no doubt there will be great temptations offered to the leadership out there, with conferences all over the world, but it seems to me that in these new countries the real opportunity for greatness lies at home. There is a great challenge in Tanganyika. The leader who improves the lot of his people will earn the gratitude of generations to come. I believe that that is the way to greatness. Apart from Tanganyika itself, there are wider challenges. Mr. Nyerere has also given a lead on the subject of East African Federation. There are such opportunities to achieve something big, and it would be well at this stage to say that in his efforts in that direction he has the good will of this House.
Tanganyika has a background of friendliness and toleration. Its capital is Dar es Salaam. Dares Salaam is the Arabic name for"haven of peace". It was the haven of peace to which the Arab dhows from the Persian Gulf brought their cargoes of dates, rice and Eastern rugs in exchange for the mangrove poles from the Rufigi Delta. I express the hope that in the political world Tanganyika will remain a haven of peace. I join hon. Members from


both sides of the House in wishing that great country well in the new life which lies before it.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. John Dugdale: I should like to join with other Members both in welcoming the Bill and in paying tribute to the many people to whom tribute has already been paid today, particularly to our administrators. I want especially to pay a tribute to Lord Twining, in spite of the fact that at one time we played a game of billiard fives together and he knocked me right across the floor.
I want to remind the House that this is a remarkable achievement. Only eleven years ago, when I was in Tanganyika, the situation was very different. In spite of what the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir R. Robinson) said about the situation today—and he was quite correct about that—eleven years ago there definitely was a colour bar and there were all kinds of difficulties in the way of Africans and Europeans meeting, as I myself experienced.
Today, not only is there no colour bar and not only are there happy relationships between Africans and Europeans, but Africans are in charge of the Government and will soon have a majority party in a Parliament which includes all races. This is a remarkable achievement. I remember that it was only about eleven years ago that my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) made it possible for Africans to serve on the bench as justices of the peace. Today, they are in a majority on the Legislative Council!
All this has been done without any bitterness, without any Mau Mau, without any discriminatory laws, and without any of the troubles which we have experienced in other parts of East and Central Africa. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly may have mentioned him, but there is one person to whom I should like to pay very great tribute—not only Mr. Nyerere, but the present Leader of the House of Commons. If it had not been for what he has done, the outcome might not have been nearly so rapid and happy as it has been. I also think that the manner in which Mr. Nyerere has conducted him-

self and his nation in such a short time to independence is a remarkable example to all people throughout the rest of the Commonwealth.
I want to add a few remarks to what my right hon. Friend said about the help that we can give Tanganyika now. It is not a happy thought that at the moment of independence Tanganyika should be faced with a famine—a famine which is still going on now and which will apparently reach its peak in February, 1962, at which time 500,000 people will be receiving emergency feeding rations. This is a terrible thought. I doubt whether anyone in this Chamber can visualise it. I certainly cannot. I admit that I have never been in a famine country. It is appalling to think that this should be going on at this moment when we are sitting here well-fed, comfortable and away from this grievous trouble.
What are Her Majesty's Government doing? I know that there is a delegation here now and that the right hon. Gentleman will make up his mind later about what he will do. However, it is interesting to consider what has already been done. The Oxford Committee for Famine Relief, which is a private and not a Government organisation, has given £30,000 for seed. This is what a private organisation can do. As my right hon. Friend said, the United States Government have given large quantities of maize, which only needs to be distributed. The costs of distribution are immense and the Tanganyika Government do not want to have to face these costs.
May I crave the indulgence of the House for a few moments while I read a letter which I think has great importance? It is a letter which should be put on record, from the Prime Minister of Tanganyika to Mr. Betts, who has recently been out to Tanganyika representing the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief. Mr. Nyerere writes:
It is our teeling that the seriousness of this situation is not adequately known in Britain or elsewhere. In fact, in one Province alone almost 300,000 people are on famine relief and the situation is likely to deteriorate still further before the new crop can be harvested next year.
My Government did appeal to Her Majesty's Government in Britain for assistance towards the cost of distributing the maize which was generously supplied free at Tanganyika port by the American Government, but our


request was turned down, 1 can only believe because the full seriousness of the situation was not realised. The cost of the emergency food distribution alone is now estimated at £250,000. The additional cost of emergency works designed to maintain the principle of self-help and to provide a minimum income for those in want will be at least a further £750,000. These are charges which we have to meet as a first priority and even with this expenditure we are well aware that there is a serious risk of great malnutrition in the affected areas.
Obviously, we must spend this money to stop our people from starving, but I am sure you will understand the serious strain this puts upon our resources. The Government revenue this year will only be about £21 million and extra expenditure of this magnitude must inevitably therefore seriously disrupt our development programme, which itself is already too small.
I have troubled the House with this letter, because it is a serious one, written by a man whom we all admire, who is the Prime Minister of a country which is about to become independent. I hope that the Secretary of State will give this matter further consideration and will be able to announce later that we can give some help of the kind Mr. Nyerere would like us to give.
After all, we have given help to other places. Why is it, for instance, that Kenya can have help? Why can Kenya have far more help than Tanganyika? Why is it, for example, that Swaziland can have 46s. a head, plus a loan of 40s. a head, while the total amount given to Tanganyika in settlement under the Bill, if we exclude retirement pensions paid to civil servants, is 6s. per head per year for three years, plus a loan of 3s. per head per year. This is not a very large sum of money. I am subject to correction; I may be wrong, but I understand that is the total if the amount given by way of retirement pensions to civil servants is excluded. It is not a very large sum compared with the sums given to Swaziland and other countries.
The fact that Tanganyika has had such a peaceful accession to independence should weigh with us and make us want to give more rather than less help. Other countries have had a less peaceful route to independence, but they have received more money. I hope that Tanganyika will be rewarded for her peacefulness by being given the money she needs to help her people in their time of distress.
Having said that, like others I welcome the Bill. I welcome also the tre-

mendous tribute it pays to our colonial administration that we should manage to have a country coming to independence in such a happy state of mind, without bitterness, and with respect, indeed love, for the British people.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. Henry Clark: Hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome the Bill, because it sets the seal on probably the speediest and quietest move that any country has ever made from the colonial state to independence.
While 1 heartily welcome the Bill and I do not want to strike a discordant note, I cannot help having mixed feelings on the subject. It is inevitable that on nearly all questions concerning Africa today we have feelings on two entirely different levels. We must consider the problem of Africa in the world as it is today and then, despite ourselves and despite any logic, we must consider the problems in a spirit of unpractical nostalgia, thinking of what we would like to have seen happen.
The fact that Tanganyika has come to her independence so speedily and easily is in itself some tribute to our trusteeship of the country, which was honestly and well carried out. I am exceedingly proud of the small part that I played in it.
But a feeling which is experienced by anyone who has worked at any job and then left it is that we could have done a great deal more. We could have done hundreds of things if only we had had a little more time. I cannot help feeling regret that Tanganyika has not been able to move towards independence at a slightly slower pace, as that great country Nigeria was able to in the 1950s. However, we know that that sort of thing is not possible in the 1960s.
While I am speaking of our administration and of our having, I believe, carried it out well, I should like to say that the civil servants whom we sent out to Tanganyika are being looked after well. I spent some weeks in Tanganyika this summer and saw the staff associations. Even they had very few complaints to make, which is a remarkable thing for a staff association.
But there are Government servants who have worked very well for us who are not covered by any staff association. They are people who cannot go to their homes in some other country, but will remain in Tanganyika. I speak particularly of the chiefs and the native authorities, not the great chiefs of whom one immediately thinks—such as Fundikira, Humbi, Adam Sapi, Mwami Theresa Ntare, Ambuje Mataka—but the smaller men, the jumbes and liwalis. They are people who, inevitably, during the last five years, have had a stigma as being stooges and supporters of the Government. But I believe that when the history of Tanganyika is written it will be seen that they not only served Her Majesty's Government well, but also served Tanganyika very well indeed.
I am afraid that many of these people, whom I know and like so much, will in the years to come find themselves thrust out, find themselves exceedingly poor, and find that all that they knew before and all that they looked forward to in the past has been taken from them. I feel that the best interests of those people should be represented to Mr. Nyerere and his Government by Her Majesty's Government and that every possible step should be taken to ensure that the servants of the British Government who will remain in Tanganyika are looked after and cared for and are not thrust away as being just stooges of colonialism. There are hundreds of them all over Tanganyika, and I do not think that we shall have done right by Tanganyika if we do not remember them on this occasion.
There is one other problem relating to Tanganyika in which I believe Her Majesty's Government can be of some assistance. This concerns Tanganyika's most awkward neighbour. I say this with the authority of many important people in Tanganyika behind it. I refer to Portuguese East Africa—Mozambique. We have heard a great deal about Angola because it happens to be more in the news. I feel that in Africa today Portuguese East Africa is a much greater menace than Angola.
Angola is, by various circumstances, almost isolated from other countries, but Portuguese East Africa lies in the very heart of all those countries of Africa

where we British feel that we may have served Africa a little. It borders Nyasa-land, Swaziland and Tanganyika. If we had an eruption in Portuguese East Africa as we had in Angola, a great deal would be done to destroy the good will which has been created between the races which live in Africa.
The Portuguese are extremely fond on occasions of referring to themselves as our oldest allies. I am never very clear how this works out historically, but if that phrase means anything I feel that we must use every influence that we have with the Portuguese Government to make them see the light. I do not want to bring a party issue into this, but I have never for a moment supported the suggestions put forward from the other side of the House for various moves against Portugal when she was having an extremely difficult time in Portugal It is never a very good time to nudge somebody in the back when he is having a fight.
However, I feel that now peace has returned to Angola, and now the time is ripe for reform, we should use every influence we have with the Portuguese Government to ensure that reforms are introduced before the bomb goes off in Portuguese East Africa. If the Portuguese Government go on in their present course, and the minor reforms last August are almost worthless, the bomb will go off In Portuguese East Africa, and much of the good work that we have done in Africa will be destroyed.
I add my support to the plea made by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) for a gift to be made to Tanganyika on her independence to assist her in her famine problem. It has been the policy within the Colonial Empire for a very long time that each country should look after its own disasters as far as it is able, but when a disaster reaches the level of being extraordinary it can then look to this country for assistance.
We can all think easily of Colonies which have had extraordinary disasters. We had Mauritius with its hurricanes. Recently, we have had the British Honduras disaster. Those are dramatic, and they reach the headlines at once. Tanganyika's famine is just as disastrous and just as extraordinary as Mauritius's cyclone or British Honduras's hurricane


"Hattie", but it has come much more slowly. The rains failed for two years, and we have a possibility of about one in five of failure of the rains again next year. We must not base all our calculations on the arrival of good rains next January. The famine came only five years after the last disastrous famine in the Central Province of Tanganyika— at a time when the local treasuries had used up all their financial resources and when the people were already to some extent emaciated—permanently emaciated, as we have heard—by the previous famine.
We must not forget our duties as a colonial Power. I have never thought 'that"colonial"in the sense of our standing with Tanganyika was a dirty word. We have responsibilities right up to 9th December of this year, and I feel that if we are to live up to them we must give Tanganyika some assistance, because if we do not, the development plan, which we subscribed to early in August, will very probably be sabtotaged.
Perhaps one of the happiest facets of Tanganyika's becoming fully independent is that the ablest and most moderate statesman Africa has yet produced will be launched on the counsels of the world. I think that one can pay special tribute to Mr. Nyerere, because nobody anywhere in Africa has had the opportunity to cash in on the cult of personality more than he has and resisted the temptation.
When I was in Dares Salaam, in August, the question was being discussed of a medal for the school children during the independence celebration. There was continually from the Prime Minister's office a flat "No; Mr. Nyerere's head is not to appear on the medal. "Eventually, a British civil servant went to Mr. Nyerere and said, "You know perfectly well—if you do not, I am assuring you of it now —that every man, woman and child of every race in Tanganyika wants your head to appear on the independence medal. Will you agree to it?"
I believe that Mr. Nyerere has now agreed to it, but it was under very severe protest, and I do not think that we shall be seeing his head upon the stamps and coins of Tanganyika. Nor do I think that we shall have a statue of Mr. Nyerere ready for blowing up for some time yet in Dar es Salaam.
Like other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I welcome the Bill and wish the people of Tanganyika the very best of good fortune in the years ahead.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. John Taylor: Thus quietly, thus unobtrusively and thus un-dramatically we perform an act this afternoon to give legislative effect to the creation of a new nation. This is a very great important event. The 9th of December will see the birth of a new country— a day of massive importance to Tanganyika and its 10 million people, who, for the first time in history, are being welded together into one great independent State reaching from the fastnesses of Kilimanjaro to the shores of Lake Nyasa and from the borders of the Congo to the Indian Ocean.
The birth of a nation is an event of world importance at any time, but the birth of this particular nation is of very special importance at this time in this place and in the Continent of Africa. It will be a free nation following the path of political democracy and that alone is a heart-warming thing in this day and age. It will be a non-racial nation and that is setting a great example to the other emergent African nations.
It is the declared policy of its Prime Minister, Mr. Julius Nyerere, whom I regard as the greatest African of them all, to create a country where Africans, Asians and Europeans can live and work together in harmony. If I can remember his actual words on this theme, he said:
It does not matter what is the colour of a man's skin or the shape of his nose. It is what the man is that matters to us.
We are fortunate that Tanganyika is blessed to have a man of his calibre and his philosophy leading his countrymen into its first year of nationhood.
Further to what my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members have said about the advisability—the almost moral obligation we have—to help Tanganyika immediately and urgently in its present disaster, I wonder what it would have cost Britain had there not been a man of the calibre of Mr. Nyerere in charge? It may have cost us many millions of pounds in keeping insurrection within bounds.
We have seen Tanganyika's progress to independence rapidly and peacefully with the negotiations conducted in amity and this has been due, in great measure, not only to those distinguished Europeans and Britons who have been mentioned this afternoon, particularly by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir R. Robinson), but also in equally great measure to the genius and leadership of Mr. Julius Nyerere.
Mr. Nyerere and his able corps of Ministers certainly have many problems, especially that of establishing an element of industrial activity into Tanganyika's economy. The immediate problem is the recovery from the devastating drought and famine of this year. Although the country faces these massive problems, I believe that it will be free from the problems of internal conflict which have so pitifully affected progress in Central Africa.
Politically, Tanganyika will be a united nation. I had the great personal pleasure last year of meeting and addressing the hon. Members of the Legislative Council—the Parliament of Tanganyika—and in all too brief a visit I made many friends of three races and a dozen creeds. I had the privilege of attending the opening of Parliament there, just over a year ago—'the Parliament which had the duty of preparing for complete independence.
It was a satisfying and moving experience to see the hon. Members conducting their Parliamentary business on the procedural model of this Mother of Parliaments. Most of them were newly-elected hon. Members with no previous experience of Parliamentary or even local government administration. It was satisfying because the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharpies), the Fourth Clerk at the Table and myself had been lecturing to the hon. Members of the Tanganyika Parliament for two weeks in an endeavour to acquaint them with all our well-tried methods, to inform them of our many mistakes so that they might avoid them, and of our methods of procedure and practice.
Accordingly, with every hon. Member of this House, I extend my good wishes to the new nation, wishing it good fortune, success and peaceful progress to

real and lasting prosperity. I salute the new nation of Tanganyika. Long may it flourish.

4.46 p.m.

Miss Joan Vickers (Plymouth, Devon-port): When I first went to Tanganyika, in 1951, I thought that it would be interesting to find out something about the country. I discovered that the name "Tanganyika" means "Mixing place". It is well named, because I suppose that of all the African States this is the one in which people mix extremely easily and freely.
I also took the opportunity of reading Livingstone's "Voyages", because it is interesting to realise that probably our grandparents knew Livingstone and were thrilled with his voyages. I can assure hon. Members that his name is very much alive today, especially in the area of Tabora. I thought that I would mention this because we owe a great deal to the explorations of Livingstone, his influence in the stopping of slavery, and it shows what tremendous progress has been made in such a short time since this man made his original voyages.
I must pay tribute to Julius Nyerere, for he is the most modest and least self-seeking politician I have ever met. I also pay tribute not only to Lord Twining, but to Lady Twining, who was a doctor in her own right, and did a tremendous amount of work, especially on behalf of women throughout Tanganyika. I also had the pleasure of attending the National Assembly—and here I think that we must be grateful to Mr. Speaker Abdul Karimjee, who is presiding over the Parliament there in a most expert manner. When one considers that although he comes from a very old Asian family, and is not an African, it is all the more credit to the people of this country. It shows how well people can mix, considering that he is in this position and is so well respected.
Since the early days of the Legislative Council I am glad to see that the right of women has been recognised, to take part in Parliamentary affairs. I believe that the last election resulted in the National Assembly having seven women representing all races. In this, I pay tribute to the Tanganyika Council of Women, which, through its women's clubs and organisations throughout the country,


has done a lot to train women. One of the failings in so many African countries is that women are left educationally behind the men and have not been able to play an equal part. This has had many poor results because if a woman cannot share the same interests a man may go elsewhere, perhaps to undesirable clubs and meetings, which may not be beneficial for the family.
We should also remember Mr. Williamson and the fact that he has given great prosperity to Tanganyika after a great many years of privation and service in the discovery of the diamond mines. In this context, I must mention Mr. Chopra, who had sufficient faith in him to help him financially and who, I gather, has retired to Switzerland.
No mention has been made in this debate so far of the trade unions of Tanganyika. They have been fortunate in having 39 trade unions there, with over 65,000 members, and I hope that these will grow to strength. They have been formed on the right lines and they work as trade unions should do, instead of as occurs in so many countries where they have become rather like secret societies. I wish them good luck in their work in the future.
One of the interesting things about Tanganyika is the success of community development. Of all African territories that I have had the opportunity of visiting, community development is more understood in Tanganyika than in any other. One must give credit to Mr. Kawawa for this. He has done much, through the formation of community centres, for the training of people, particularly in adult education, and I hope that whatever happens there will be sufficient money to enable this work to be carried on.
Voluntary work in Tanganyika has been outstanding. I went there on behalf of the Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind. At Tabora, there is the best scheme for training blind Africans—what is known as a Shamba scheme—in any country in Africa. The Government are so interested in this training that they have taken over this centre as a training centre of their own, and I commend that as the way things should be done. Organisation should be started by voluntary bodies in the

United Kingdom and then taken over by the Government.
At the recent conference at Arusha I was interested to find that under the guidance of Mr. Fundikira, who is the chief of Tabora, and has been an agricultural officer, there was set up a committee concerned with the necessary preservation of wild life. This will be beneficial to Tanganyika and to the future of the tourist trade. I gather that the Prime Minister himself is interested in this scheme.
I hope that Her Majesty's Government will not neglect to help the small but very enthusiastic navy. When I went there in 1957 there was only one ship, H.M.S. "Rosalind", but now there are two or three. The navy provides very good training, and I hope that it will get help from Her Majesty's Government in the future.
One of the things that have helped Tanganyika so much has been the lack of tribal tension. People live completely different lives there. I have had an opportunity of visiting Lindi, in the south, seeing the problems of people from Portuguese East Africa coming over to Lindi, trying to get work and being settled on the land, and then going north to Bukoba and seeing the different way in which people live there. When they meet they manage to do so without the tribal tensions that one finds in so many other countries.
I should like also to comment on the fact that there is freedom of worship. This is particularly very important, particularly as there are a great many church schools which have given considerable aid in the education of the population, and, we hope, will continue to do so.
I also want to mention the police. The police in Tanganyika have rendered outstanding service to their country. Only a short time ago, when 400 cattle were stolen from the Masai, the way in which the police acted and stopped a possible riot between the Masai and the Sukama was wonderful. This was watched by a member of the Fifth United Nations Mission, who expressed his admiration. When one remembers that from time to time there has been difficulty in Dares Salaam with the unemployed, one realises that one of the


strongest hopes for the future is that there is such a loyal police force there.
The co-operative societies, particularly the coffee co-operatives, have done a great deal to help the prosperity of the country. I hope that we shall still be able to advise them and have more people from Tanganyika trained in this technique in this country because I believe that the co-operative system is beneficial to Tanganyika.
Finally, I should like to refer to the famine and to consider how we can help. When one comes of age or, as in this case, obtains independence, it is usual to make certain presents. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that we might persuade the Commonwealth to make some presents to Tanganyika on this occasion. I do not necessarily mean money presents or loans of money, so much as actual gifts.
I suggest that Canada might give wheat, New Zealand milk products, Australia meat, wheat or both, Malaya rice and Nigeria red palm oil. I feel that if gifts from the Commonwealth countries could be made immediately so that they are available on Independence Day, 9th December, it would be of great help to the country and would also be a concrete means of expressing our good wishes for the future.
With those few words I should like to add my good wishes to the people of this country which, I hope, will grow in prosperity and will enjoy a happy and lasting independence.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: As one who, like the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devon-port (Miss Vickers), has had an opportunity of visiting the territory on several occasions, I should like to express my pleasure and satisfaction that Tanganyika has reached this important stage in its constitutional development to full nationhood.
The Secretary of State, in introducing the Bill, apart from saying that this is now the largest territory left to achieve independence—it is, after all, only a little smaller than Nigeria—made the point that it was the first East African country to achieve independence. He might have said also that it is one of the few coun-

tries that have reached this stage so astonishingly quickly without an intervening period of unrest and violence and without the chief characters emerging from hiding or from gaol. This is a distinction to which we cannot always point in the history of African development.
I believe that this fortunate state of affairs is due to three circumstances. I should like, first, to emphasise that the attention given to this very backward territory by the Labour Government of 1945–50 was undoubtedly one of the decisive factors which have made this present constitutional development possible. The Overseas Food Corporation Scheme, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) was so much more closely connected than I am, and who has so much more knowledge, placed this territory on the map.
I am glad to quote, in support of this contention, the words of the former Governor of Tanganyika, Lord Twining, who said to me that groundnuts put Tanganyika on the map. So much party propaganda was made about that scheme that I think this fact ought to be registered. The scheme was not only responsible for introducing capital on a scale hitherto undreamed of by Tanganyika, but it also introduced skilled personnel some of whom stayed in the territory afterwards and have helped in its development.
The scheme had various difficulties. There was then, as now, a shortage of rain. This happens sometimes in Africa, although some hon. Members at the time seemed to think that this was a peculiar circumstance devised by the incompetence of the Labour Government. But there were other difficulties at the time. The scheme may have been pushed through too quickly, but we were then facing what appeared then to be a desperate shortage of fats throughout the world, and I think that the Government were wise to take the decisions that they did.
All I can say is that I felt great pleasure when, a few years ago, I stood by the new deep-water harbour at Mikindani built under the scheme, a place which previously, I think, had only two claims to fame, one, that it was the scene of the romantic novel The Blue


Lagoon;the other, that it was the place where Livingstone left Africa. A few years ago, I was able to stand there and see this great deep-water harbour, with ships of up to 10,000 tons taking away the produce of the territory, of the forests, for instance, which, previously, were quite unexploited because there was no means of carrying the timber away. Food crops come rolling down the 120 miles of new railway line from Nachingwa, where, in the year I was there, 1957, more than £250,000 worth of agricultural produce was raised from an area which hitherto was semi-desert.
These are great achievements, and I am glad to think that the attention given to the territory by the Labour Government has produced those results. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House today are glad of the continuing success of the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation which took over the three schemes in Tanganyika of the Overseas Food Corporation. Of course, the original scheme not only introduced capital and personnel and built harbours, roads and railways, but, of course, it created schools and hospitals, all of which have been of tremendous benefit. I believe that it was one of the most important historical acts in this part of Africa.
The second factor which has been of importance in development has been the visiting missions from the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations. Territorial Governments were not always pleased with what the missions said, whom they saw, and how they reported, and, to be quite frank, I think that the missions sometimes were not altogether fair. This was true of the visiting mission of 1954. Generally speaking, however, I think that, by concentrating the attention of experts and observers from all over the world on the territory, the missions kept administrators on their toes, gave opportunities for people to make appeals if they felt they were being unfairly treated, and, in the result, whether intended or not I do not know, many developments took place during the past ten years which might well not have taken place but for the kind of very close investigation given to the territory by the United Nations.
The results of those two factors, the work of the visiting missions and the

development schemes of 1945-50 were, of course, in striking contrast to what happened in the territory between the wars. Tanganyika was then a backward territory. Its future was uncertain. The best overseas civil servants preferred not to go there because they did not know what would happen. There were then even some hon. Members of this House—I do not think there are any now—who advocated that the territory should go back to Germany. I am certain that the two big changes since the war to which I have referred helped a great deal to bring the country to the position it now occupies.
The third circumstance which, undoubtedly, has led to advance in Tanganyika is the character and personality of the leader of the African people in Tanganyika, Julius Nyerere. There have already been references to this and it would be superfluous if I were to add anything except to say that I believe that he is a man of great vision and great imagination, a man who has always had a very clear conception of the sort of State he wanted and believed was possible in the territory—an independent State within the Commonwealth based on the model of our British parliamentary democracy. I believe that that vision is capable of being realised. Mr. Nyerere has shown that himself in the actions he has taken, and I believe that Tanganyika and the Commonwealth are fortunate in having such a personality.
As hon. Members have said, it is a great pity that our celebrations at this time should be put in the shadow by the famine which has affected Tanganyika, particularly the Central Province. It is very unfortunate that at this particular time the new Government should have to face a crisis of such magnitude. I understand that, according to the report of the special investigator sent by the Oxford Famine Relief Committee, already 300,000 persons are existing on emergency rations. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale), who spoke earlier in the debate, said Chat it was likely that, by February, half a million people would be involved. My own information is that, perhaps, by December there will be half a million people on emergency rations.
The situation is very serious indeed. I am informed that the rations just about keep a person alive, but not much more. There will have to be further help. One cannot look forward to any natural automatic easing of the situation. Again, there has been a lack of rain over a long period which has been responsible for the reduction in crops. I understand that the other factor is a nasty parasite called the army worm. The name may be rather a comical one, but the effect of the parasite is very unfortunate. These two factors together have brought about a catastrophic fall in the quantity of the crops and also, I understand, cattle have been affected. According to the information which I have and information which was given* to the Oxford Committee, about 500,000 cattle are likely to die before the end of the year. This will mean a permanent reduction in the resources of a very considerable part of the territory, with very damaging consequences in future years.
The Tanganyika Government have already set up a fund of £150,000 to help in the distribution of maize, some of which has been given by the United States, but it is certain that more help is required. I was a little surprised that the Secretary of State, in introducing the Bill, did not refer to this matter at all. I take it that we shall hear something shortly from the Under-Secretary.
The last time that we discussed Tanganyika, we had to criticise the Government because they had just announced certain cuts in their financial provisions. There has been an improvement since then, but we must really press, as hon. Members have done, for help to be given to Tanganyika now in what is a disaster of the first magnitude. Failure to give adequate help might put in jeopardy all the progress so far registered in Tanganyika. African citizens, like anyone else, are bound to judge by results, and, if there is a prolonged period of starvation and misery, this could lead to all sorts of unfortunate consequences, which I need not elaborate to the House.
I express great joy and appreciation that there are in this State none of the racial problems commonly associated with other African territories. From the very first, not only Julius Nyerere but the Tanganyika African National Union

have looked, and have asked their members to look, upon all who live, work and wish to remain in Tanganyika not as Europeans, Africans, Asians, or Arabs, but as Tanganyikans. This is the happiest augury for the future. It is based on solid achievement in the past. Julius Nyerere himself was the leader of all the races in opposition and he is now head of a Government of all the races, which gives us great hope for the future.
I hope that all the Europeans who are able to stay on in Tanganyika in the public services will do so. Obviously, Tanganyika must push ahead with the promotion of Africans to positions of responsibility. I was glad to read that, in the period ended June, 1961, the number of Africans in important positions was increased from 300 to over 600, a considerable advance, and I am sure that the House is glad to note that the first provincial African education officer has been appointed in Tanga Province. We wish him well, and we hope that this appointment will be succeeded by many others.
Nevertheless, the Prime Minister himself has said—and everyone who knows the territory realises this—that for some years to come Tanganyika will require all the help and advice that skilled personnel in all the services can give. I hope that people will stay on. I believe that there is a future for them in this territory, a future probably brighter than anywhere else. The territorial Government are determined to treat them as well as they possibly can in the circumstances.
I echo what was said by the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) about the co-operative movement. The co-operative movement in Tanganyika is responsible for one-fifth of the country's exports. It represents a way of life which Africans understand and appreciate because they can take part in it and feel that they are not being exploited. Not only do we have in the co-operative movement established people of long experience in the producer societies, but there are many new successful co-operative developments taking place today. I know that it is the intention of the territorial Government to improve methods of production wherever they can.
I should like to say how glad I am that this country, in such a short time, has reached independence and to join hon. Members in wishing the people and Government of Tanganyika all success in the future.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: The hon. Member for Hayes and Har-lington (Mr. Skeffington) and other hon. Members have welcomed the Bill. Indeed, some hon. Members have waxed lyrical about it and about the future of Tanganyika. I fear that I propose to strike a more discordant note, because I am overwhelmingly impressed by the immense risk in the gamble that we are taking on the intelligence, industry and ability of one man, Mr. Julius Nyerere. If he succeeds in this gamble, I am sure that Tanganyika can play a useful part in the Commonwealth. But if he blunders, then millions of people for whom we are now responsible may well slip back into the quiet but not very serene life that they once knew, unhampered by Western civilisation.
In approaching independence, Tanganyika is in saome respects helped by its own weaknesses. We have heard many tributes to the energy and ability of the British civil servants who have done their duty in the Territory. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark) is included in that number. It cannot be said that in the past Tanganyika has been an over-administered Territory, nor that the central administration has reached a very high level of sophistication. Therefore, Tanganyika is not faced with the problem of administrative disruption which may very well hamper Kenya when independence comes to that country in the not too distant future, because the superstructure of administration can no longer be supported.
Then there is the question of the economy. We have heard evidence this afternoon, and I have seen it recently with my own eyes, of the calamities that can happen when the economy is disrupted by drought. I have recently been in the Northern Province of Tanganyika. I join with others in hoping that we can make a generous gesture and bear the cost of the distribution of the food that has been so generously contributed by the American Government. It is a fact

that when calamity comes the Tanganyika economy which is weak, cannot stand the strain which is put upon it.
On the other hand, there are certain advantages to a country when it is approaching the threshold of independence in having a suspect type of economy. In Kenya, which is also on the threshold of independence and where there has been much more development in the European and African parts of the economy, there is, I believe, a very grave danger of economic collapse. The experts on economic affairs in Kenya tell me that they expect that, on achieving independence, the Kenyan economy will sink back to the level of the Tanganyika economy, which is about two-thirds of the level in Kenya. I do not think that the Tanganyikan economy can collapse because it is too close to the ground. Therefore, this threat, which is very real in other parts of East Africa, is not present in Tanganyika to the same extent.
Perhaps the greatest advantage that Tanganyika has in moving towards independence so quickly is shown by the fact that Jomo Kenyatta has recently been addressing a meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in this Palace of Westminster. The affairs of Kenya have been torn by tribal dissension. In Tanganyika, through no virtue of its own but by the chance of nature, this chaotic tribal confrontation does not happen. It seems that, with a minimum of good judgment and good luck, tribal conflict there can be avoided.
In Tanganyika there is no heritage of racial bitterness of the sort that has done so much damage in Kenya. Whereas there are a number of members of Jomo Kenyatta's K.A.N.U. party whose political thinking even at this moment goes no further than a study of the entrails of goats, there is in Mr. Nyerere's party a genuine effort to build more than a facade of multi-racial co-operation.
Against this, there is the question of education. Professor Arthur Lewis, who is by no means a reactionary, has estimated that if a society is to contain within itself the power to progress and to grow, 10 per cent. of the members of every generation must have a secondary education. Eighteen months


ago I was talking in Dar es Salaam to the Director of Education of Tanganyika. The statistics were frightening, and they showed how far Tanganyika is from the achievement of 10 per cent, of any generation of her people, let alone every generation, with a secondary education. It is this gap between the educational poverty of the country and the minimum standard laid down by Professor Lewis which can only be offset by Mr. Nyerere's great talents. Perhaps it will come off, perhaps it will not.
We all know that this Bill has been framed by the present Leader of the House. I do not believe that these are bridge players' odds. I have a nasty suspicion that, in our desire to liquidate as quickly as we can the remaining British territorial possessions in East Africa, the true interests of the people concerned have taken second place.
There is one other reason why I do not give this Bill a very warm welcome. It is that I regret that the period of time between the granting of full internal self-government and complete independence has been so short. In other parts of the Commonwealth, in Ghana and in the West Indies, this period has covered years. Now it is to be compressed into a matter of months. This may be all right in Tanganyika itself, but Tanganyika is setting a precedent for the rest of East Africa. It has already set the precedent for Uganda and, undoubtedly, will set the precedent for Kenya itself.
I am convinced that in those other territories, where there is much greater tribal friction and a very real danger of tribal civil war, an extended period of full internal self-government is absolutely essential if we are to avoid catastrophe. Because the Tanganyikan precedent is entirely in the opposite direction I am extremely sad.
While there is much to welcome in the Bill, I believe that it makes slightly more possible the outbreak of real violence in Uganda and makes infinitely more possible the outbreak of real chaos in Kenya.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. John Stonehouse: Less than a hundred years ago British public opinion was electrified by the

terrible reports of the slave trade in Tanganyika. At that time that country was being depopulated at the rate of tens of thousands a year by the slave traders who had gone into the interior from Dares Salaam and who were using Zanzibar as their headquarters. It was partly as a result of this House setting up a Select Committee in 1871 to investigate the slave trade that the British public began to take an interest in doing something constructive for that part of the world.
Now, less than a hundred years afterwards, we in this House welcome, with, perhaps, just one exception—the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) —the independence of this vast territory which had its very heart, its very soul and its very body torn out for something like four hundred years from the 15th century to the middle of the 19th century. We and the rest of the world have a debt to repay to Tanganyika for the damage done.
It is really remarkable that, despite that background, Tanganyika has in the last few years been able to make such exceptional progress. I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) in paying tribute to the Labour Administration and to the work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) during that Administration. I also wish to pay tribute to Conservative Colonial Secretaries who have been realistically facing up to the facts as far as Tanganyika is concerned and who have helped her to reach the stage at which she has arrived today.
As I listened to most of the speeches made this afternoon by hon. Members opposite, I was struck by the fact that almost all of them appear to have been converted to Labour Party ideas. We heard tributes paid to the trade unions, to the co-operative societies and to Mr. Julius Nyerere, that great Socialist who leads a great Socialist party in the Tanganyika African National Union. It is a very fine thing indeed that Conservative hon. Members have the courage and the honesty to admit that these ideals have played such a great part in the development of Tanganyika.
What a contrast this is with the situation that has existed for many years in Kenya where a Conservative Government encouraged a white minority of only some 70,000 odd to entertain ideas of domination of the territory. What a contrast it is to the situation now existing in the Rhodesias where, even now, the Conservative Government are encouraging a tiny white minority representing less than 4 per cent. of the total population to have ideas of overwhelming political control.
Let the Conservative Party really learn from the lessons of Tanganyika. Do not let us have any humbug in the speeches congratulating her on independence. Let them realise that it is the political experiment of one man, one vote, the ideal of complete non-racial equality, which has brought about this remarkable situation there. If we had had a situation of fancy franchises delaying constitutional advance—which we have had in Kenya, and particularly in Northern Rhodesia —this situation in Tanganyika would not have been reached today. It is because—and I pay tribute to them—Conservative Ministers have had the courage to take a leap forward and allow real progress towards non-racial democracy that we have reached this situation.
I remember only a few years ago hon. Members opposite pouring cold water and scorn on the idea of one man, one vote. Political democracy in Tanganyika, as in other countries, is a catalyst which can help overcome the terrible effects of degradation and backwardness. I think that this in Tanganyika will enable this great nation to go ahead united.
If there had been delay, as it was suggested by the hon. Member for Beckenham there should have been, it is quite likely that this great experiment would not have succeeded. Suspicions would have been raised, doubts would have been cast and enmities taken up which would have taken a much longer time to eradicate than to build up. Of course, the Prime Minister of Tanganyika is a remarkable man. He is one of the outstanding men of this generation. But he has had a remarkable party with which to work. The Socialist Tanganyika African National Union is really a remarkable organisation. It was created only in 1954, and yet within seven years it

is taking over the government of an independent nation which will play its full part within the Commonwealth.
I pay tribute not only to Mr. Nyerere but also to some of his lieutenants. For instance, there is Mr. Oscar Kambona, a man who could have gone into a career and made a lot of money. He spent many years going to the villages, to the hinterland, spreading the gospel of political advance when it was not a popular thing to do. Let us remember that at that time some of the colonial civil servants were doing their best to undermine the development of T.A.N.U. because they were suspicious of any organisation and suspicious of men like Kambona, who put the interests of his country before himself. There were men like Paul Bomani, a co-operator who, in face of official obstruction, developed that great Victoria federation of co-operatives, that great co-operators' organisation which has transformed what was a backward area into a prosperous part of Tanganyika and which in one year has produoed 200,000 bales of cotton. It is an enterprise which is almost completely owned by its own members who, through Socialist co-operative methods, are learning the best way to develop their country. Then there are the older examples, such as the Bukoba Co-operative Union, led by a man who is now one of the prominent Ministers in Mr. Nyerere's Administration. Also the K.N.C.U. around the mountain of Kilimanjaro is one of the oldest examples of cooperative success. It is only through such methods of co-operative development that the whole people of Tanganyika can be drawn together now in this great task of building up the standards of 10 million people who have been denied opportunities in the past.
What can we do to help them? It is not good enough just to say nice things about Tanganyika on reaching its independence. I support entirely what my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly and other hon. Members have said about the need to provide assistance during this terrible period of famine. Let us, however, remember that this is not a short-term problem. The problem of starvation and malnutrition is always facing a country like Tanganyika with limited resources which have not been developed by any means to the full.
Therefore, even after we have given aid to meet the famine, I hope that we will be imaginative enough to work out with the new Government of the independent Tanganyika a scheme for large-scale economic assistance spread over the next seven years. I would put the amount required for this at no less than £250 million. The country needs a vast amount spent on the development of railways, roads, communications and hydro-electric and irrigation schemes. The great Rufiji scheme, for instance, could be developed if sufficient money was available. Then, there are the industrial developments that go with the building up of the agricultural base of the economy. It is only by developing Tanganyika, by investing such large sums of money, that the rest of the world can pay the debt that we owe to Tanganyika for the terrible evils done to it through 400 or 500 years of the slave trade. I hope that co-operative techniques can be, as, I believe, they will be, a great part of that development.
I echo the hopes of the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) that during these years ahead there will be close contact between the organisations in Tanganyika like the co-operatives and the trade unions and our own co-operative and trade union organisations, because a very great deal can be obtained for both sides by such friendly contact. I echo the good wishes which have been expressed and wish the Government and people of Tanganyika all great progress that they deserve in the future.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. Julian Snow (Lichfield and Tam-worth): I gather from listening to the debate and looking round that I am one of three hon. Members of this House who have actually worked in Tanganyika as opposed to paying sporadic visits. That does not give me any particular right, however, to speak about Tanganyika with a great fund of knowledge. My recollections go back a little further than those of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Dept-ford (Sir L. Plummer), who will shortly, I trust, catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, for the ex tremely important contribution which he can make to the debate.
When I first went to Tanganyika, it was under the Governorship of Sir Donald Cameron, to whom reference has already been made this afternoon by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir R. Robinson). Sir Donald himself was a pupil of Lugard. I remember that during the 1929–30 period, he was starting the institution of the indirect rule principle, which, I believe, laid the foundation for the relatively racially and tribally uninhibited atmosphere which has always existed in Tanganyika. In those years, which were not so very long after the Great War, memories were still fairly clear about the German occupation of the country. I remember the more simple-minded settler elements there talking with some nostalgia about the often brutal and often simple rule by the Germans—rule by the Kiboko, I think, they used to call it—the Rhino hide whip.
There was hostility to the general political and social attitude of Sir Donald. One remembers thankfully that his policy succeeded in suppressing that hostility and in achieving the atmosphere which I remember in that territory. The House will bear with me if I appear to be a little bit anecdotal, but I believe that today we are considering the final stage of a political situation which had its origin in the great statesmanship of Sir Donald in those days. I felt that I should say that, because I had a great affection for his personal kindness to me when I was a young man and the recollection of what he taught me in those days.
Other names have been omitted from the debate this afternoon. Reference was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) to natural tribulations such as the tsetse fly. I remember Swinnerton, at Shin-yanga, hastening to get back to that area for the tsetse season. Nobody who has ever experienced the tsetse would want to get back to subject himself to the attentions of that fly.
It was in Tanganyika and in Dares Salaam in 1930 that the first African was ever brought into consultation by the Legislative Council. His name, I believe, was Martin Kayamba. I do not know what has happened to him now.
To bring myself more up to date, there are two matters which, possibly, the


Minister might remember in his further communications with Mr. Nyerere. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly talked at great length, as other hon. Members have subsequently done, about the economic troubles which face Tanganyika, such as the famine. Tanganyika—under-capitalised, under-populated and a vast area—will have this sort of trouble for a long time. There is seasonal disruption of the road services. There is almost automatic seasonal disruption of the railway system, involving large capital cost. I do not feel particularly shy about introducing a controversial note, but I remember that when the Gold Coast was beginning to achieve independence and developing into Ghana, we had from the Conservative benches demands that all colonial development and welfare financial aid should be stopped because independence was being given. I hope not only that we consider the current famine problems of Tanganyika, but that we will bear in mind that inevitably this poorer country will have need of financial aid. It is something to which we must look forward.
Tributes have been paid validly this afternoon to the lack of inter-racial difficulties. It is within the knowledge of the House that the wholesale and retail distribution trade of Tanganyika is almost exclusively in the hands of Indians. Unless Mr. Nyerere is extremely careful, that could develop into a problem. I hope that agencies which are at the disposal of the Government will be used to try to attract Tanganyikans to this country or to other countries of Europe to learn business, commerce and the requirements of distribution, so that they can have a greater hand in the problems of the village and the small townships, which now are largely in the hands of the Indians.
So that my words cannot be misconstrued, may I say this. I, for one, pay the greatest possible tribute to the Indian community in Tanganyika. They went into scruffy, dirty, little, remote corners of the country at a time when nobody else would go and they fulfilled a most useful function. They have been honourable citizens of the territory. Many have fled from India to avoid caste restrictions. They went into a new territory where there were no comforts

and where their own civilisation was completely missing, yet they stuck it out over the decades and have achieved a distribution of goods which is truly remarkable.
It is difficult to find something new to say at this point of the debate about welcoming this step. I was sorry that I detected in speeches from the Conservative benches the old traditional Conservative feeling that we are going too fast. What we are doing today is a great tribute. We are providing an example of speedy reconciliation with our own colonial social and political attitudes and the legitimate desires of people to rule themselves as they want. I am delighted to be able to participate in this debate.

5.40 p.m.

Sir Leslie Plummer: I want to take this opportunity of adding my voice to the general welcome that has been given on both sides of the House to this Bill. It is a rare occasion when both sides are united in welcoming a Measure of any kind. It is a rare occasion when both sides are praising one particular member of the Government, in short, the Leader of the House. It is a rare occasion when we have only one Cassandra-like speech, such as the mean and ungenerous speech that we heard from the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), who, I regret to say, is not in his place at the moment. I hope that it will not go out from this House that his speech represented the informed and overwhelming opinion of this House of Commons.
One of the dangers that we are in is that of creating, as it were, the cult of personality. I think that we stand in great danger if we say,"This is going to be all right in the long run because the Prime Minister of Tanganyika is an outstanding man."I believe, with my hon. Friend the Member for Wednes-bury (Mr. Stonehouse), that the Prime Minister has been extremely fortunate in having behind him a united party of determined men who have given him the support he needs, and did need. The Prime Minister of Tanganyika, Mr. Nyerere, will, I hope, continue to get the support of all hon. and right hon. Members of this House because he will need it. We have to be prepared to help him


and to lift him up if and when he stumbles. I think that it is likely that he will stumble for reasons which are not his fault. When I read the stories and first got information of the famine now threatening the Central Province of Tanganyika, I said to myself, "My golly, this is where I came in".
In 1948, when I first went to Tanganyika to take over the groundnut scheme on behalf of the Overseas Food Corporation, as its Chairman, I was taken to the Bomas and shown the famine storage silos which had been built and which were then full, for the reason that there had been famine in the late 1940s and it was the determination of the Government that not again would starvation hit the Central Province but that there would be adequate grain stocks.
One of the problems had been that in the Southern Province in Tanganyika, the area around Nachingwa, which is the natural granary for the Central Province, was unable to send food up because the roads were in such a shocking condition. I think that I have already told the House that I discovered at one time that in those days the bridges across the rivers were taken in by the Public Works Department at flood tide because they might be swept away. So the bridges that were built so that people could cross the rivers were not there when they were needed and the food could not be brought up.
It was said that this situation would not occur again, but now it has occurred. Why? It is not Mr. Nyerere's fault;it is our fault. We have a harbour at Mikindani which, as my hon. Friend has mentioned, is able to take ships up to 10,000 tons, and which was built by the Overseas Food Corporation. There are roads in Tanganyika which clearly did not exist before the Overseas Food Corporation took over. There are railways in Tanganyika which did not exist before the Overseas Food Corporation came into existence;yet we have this trouble. We have this famine facing 500,000 people or more. It is an example of the hazardous nature of agriculture in Tanganyika which will not be solved by a change of Government or by a change of Prime Minister. We have to

say to Mr. Nyerere, "We are standing behind you over these next formative years to see to it that if you do have these calamities we will help you."
I have sat on the stoep of a mud house in the Central province of Tanganyika watching the rain clouds blow overhead and seeing for the second summer in succession a terrible drought gripping the land. One hon. Member referred to the fact that next year there was a one in five chance that there would be a drought again. I think that this is likely to be true. We cannot rely on the rainfall in the Central Province of Tanganyika, but we can rely on it to a greater extent in the Southern Province. What Mr. Nyerere needs and the people of Tanganyika need is a gigantic influx of capital to build even more railways and roads and even more storage places to enable the risk of famine through drought to be avoided.
I hope that the Government will not say, simply because Tanganyika has achieved its independence,"We wash our hands of Tanganyika."We the people of Great Britain owe a great debt of gratitude to the people of Tanganyika. It was through the low standard of living on which so many of them have existed in the past, and their wretched conditions, that we enjoy our standard of life. I do not think that we can evade our responsibility for what has happened in the past simply by praising Mr. Nyerere now and just welcoming this Bill.
I send my particular good wishes to the men and women who are working in the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation, the body that has taken over the enterprise that was left from the Overseas Food Corporation. I know many of those men and women. I worked with them in the heat, the dust and the wind devils in the generally rigorous conditions of Tanganyika. I remember how they were being assailed by comedians in all parts of this country as being incompetents. These were the engineers and fitters who were working under dreadful conditions to keep the machines going. I remember how soma of the agriculturists were often criticised and the stories told of them that they did not know the difference between fertilisers and cement. I knew that, all the time these fellows were being held up as laughing stocks and criticised, any


criticism would have been better directed against me, because as the Chairman of the Overseas Food Corporation I was, as long as I was Chairman, entirely responsible for everything that happened under that scheme. What I resented above all was these men, who came out of their comfortable homes at the call of the nation to do a rigorous and terribly difficult job, being treated as if they were a pack of layabouts or fools; they were neither. They were hard-working people, and many of them stayed in Tanganyika working for the Tanganyika Corporation and adding to the wealth of the country in the way that they always hoped that they would be able to add to the wealth of that country.
It is to those men and women in particular that I would say, "I hope that your experiences in the last twelve or thirteen years and the efforts which you have made, your devotion to the country, your understanding of the people of the country, will bring the reward which we all seek"—a happy, contented, vigorous and prosperous Tanganyika.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Every one of us for a few minutes wishes to join in giving expression to good will to Tanganyika on this occasion, whether we happen, by reason of our careers, to have been taken to work in the country, whether we have visited it just casually, whether, like my right hon. Friends the Members for Llanelly (Mr. J.Griffiths) and Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones), we have been honourably connected with it from afar, whether we have been episodically connected with it, but extremely honourably, like my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer), or whether, like myself, we have never been to the country at all. Everyone wishes to take his instrument and contribute to the chamber music in rendering a Siegfried idyll from this land to that other land far away, where this event is about to take place.
This has been, as so many hon. Members have said already, the achievement of independence by real statesmanship. It has led really to the almost monolithic party control of Tanganyika, not because there has been suppression of opposition, but because, for the best of reasons, they have achieved unity of opinion. But I

do not think any of us would be unaware of the difficulties which this situation may lead to in the future. I know that it will pose problems. Can democracy survive in these circumstances? Can the rule of law flourish under a monolithic party?
A lot of people are led to assert that our Parliamentary democracy is incapable of export to Africa. I know that many Europeans, even now, are unable to make this system work, and that we ourselves have taken centuries to allow it to evolve to its present condition. I submit to the House that if democracy means that we want to see an exact replica of the Westminster system in some distant country, then there may be something in this criticism;but if, on the other hand, we mean by democracy that it is association with and participation in the government, then, in my submission, in this sense there is a very real chance of this tender part of democracy flourishing even in far-off, distant African lands.
Democracy in this sense, in my submission, is not something foreign to Africa. We hear far too often of chiefs who are looked upon as autocrats and utterly undemocratic people in their ideas, but I have seen something, not in Tanganyika but in other parts of Africa, of the way chieftaincy can work —and in very much separated parts of Africa, right in the south and right on the west;where the chief who presides over his council has to mouth the decision come to by that council, even if it is not his own, and how each one of the members of that council is, in his own right, a chief in some smaller territorial area where he has to do precisely the same thing, just as we, too, mouth what our constituents say, within certain limits which are well known to all Members of this House.
Each one of those members of those councils in the smaller territorial areas is himself a chief in a yet smaller area, so that he, too, has to take into account what his constituents say and to express their views, though they may not be his own, and carry those views on to the higher councils, to the very top council, and to the king or whoever the authority may be. So that democracy in that sense of participation in the government is by no means a strange thing to Africa. Discussion and persuasion have played their part in that democracy since long


before the dawn of history in Africa, and can still continue so to do.
It is perfectly possible that tyranny may be found even under democratic forms of government, and it is equally true that we may find freedom in those African forms of democracy. So that I do not feel that we necessarily ought to be too apprehensive about the tendency in Tanganyika or elsewhere in Africa to form one-party States. We should not be unduly upset by that in itself. There is a great deal else to be looked at before we can say whether or not democracy has a real chance to flourish there, because we can have tyranny flourishing under complete forms of democracy, as I have just said, tyranny which may be by big business or by bribery—whatever form it may take.
In spite of the fears which we may have with regard to this particular tendency in Tanganyika, everybody has paid tribute not only to Julius Nyerere but to his lieutenants who have so ably led their country to its present state, and we can join, in spite of possible fears which we may have, in wishing the Tanganyikans on their independence the very best of good fortune, expressing the hope that the roots of democracy may strike deep in their country so that the rule of law, that hallmark of the worthwhile civilisation, may be established there for lasting good.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Creech Jones: Because of my own association with Tanganyika in days gone by I, too, should like to join in the general chorus of congratulations and good wishes to the territory.
I well remember that when I was trying to persuade the British settlers in Tanganyika that the system of trusteeship would be, in the long run, of some value to them in the national life they were hoping to create, there was some considerable hesitation as to whether this system should be made to apply. It was felt that the territory should not come under the trusteeship system at all, but should be considered purely as a British territory, in much the same way as the Union of South Africa has treated South-West Africa as virtually an appendage of its own national life.
I tried at that time to persuade those who made their representations that we would administer the territory in accordance with the highest standards of British colonial administration, and it is a pleasing thing that, under some degree of supervision of the Trusteeship Council, the country has progressed in the way it has and produced very remarkable results and attained its independence.
There is an extraordinary history of administrators, of those who have given much of their life to the territory. I was very pleased to hear the tribute to Dundas and his work in the coffee area. He certainly helped to create what is probably the largest African co-operative society in the whole of that vast continent. Likewise, I think there was created under private enterprise a model establishment in the Williamson Diamond Mining Company. It is a very pleasing development that the Tanganyikan Government now have a very considerable interest in that company, and that for all practical purposes the mine is virtually a nationalised industry, in association with the Diamond Corporation of South Africa.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dept-ford (Sir L. Plummer) has referred to the groundnuts scheme, which made an enormous contribution to Tanganyika. It was imperative that some experiment should be made to discover whether sub-marginal land could be brought into cultivation to produce foodstuffs for the people. There was a considerable loss in the experiment, nevertheless it made some prominent contributions to the life of the territory. The roads, bridges, schools, hospitals and some of the agricultural work, particularly the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation, have all left their mark on the life of the territory. To that extent the House ought not so frequently to wipe out the contribution which the groundnuts scheme made.
I would hope that the future of Tanganyika is much brighter than it appears at the moment. There is considerable wealth in the territory. Considerable capital expenditure may be involved in the exploitation of some of it, but there is no doubt that there is still great possibility in such exploitation to the advantage of the territory.
***

I should like to appeal particularly to the Secretary of State about financial arrangements when territories reach their independence. The days following independence are usually days of considerable difficulty in the construction of a great deal of the national life and the creation of national unity, the building up of a sense of national purpose, and the securing of an economic basis on which that national purpose can be sustained. It is, therefore, all the more important that we ourselves should not wash our hands completely of liabilities and obligations into which we have entered.
I urge the Government to review their general attitude towards the attainment of independence and to abandon the pedantic view that independence involves no practical support in terms of grants or loans from this country. It always seemed to me to be a tragedy that colonial development and welfare funds should not be able to contribute certain of its benefits to a territory because that territory had passed the borderline to an independent status. The same applies to the operation of the Colonial Development Corporation.
We have not made adequate provision subsequent to independence for those territories which have been in our trust and which we have nurtured over a period. Because they have wished to attain political independence we have thrust them back into considerable difficulty. Even some of the moral obligations that we entered into have been neglected because we have failed to provide the financial wherewithal to sustain the future development that these territories require. They have not the resources nor can they, in the course of development work, obtain the resources so essential for their ultimate well-being.
I would like to express my very good wishes for the future of this territory. It may be that the Tanganyikans will be prepared for some diminution of their own sovereignty by their association in what was formerly called the High Commission of East Africa. I had a great deal to do with the inauguration of the High Commission and with persuading the people of East Africa to 'adopt this extraordinary conception, which the Governors of East Africa at that time had worked out. We successfully tried to persuade the people to see that cer-

tain common services of the war period should be perpetuated in the days of peace.
Although we may be critical of the structure of the High Commission as it has existed right up to now, nevertheless it was the only kind of structure possible with the political development at that time. Now that the political development of each of the three territories has been moving towards democratic forms, it is right and proper that the Government, as they are doing, should consent to complete revision of the High Commission machinery in order that it might serve better the democratic needs of the three territories. I hope, therefore, that this transformation will come about soon in order that the three territories which are reaching their independence may now co-operate along the lines which they think are to the best interests of their own ultimate well-being.
I congratulate the Government on bringing forward this Bill so speedily. I hope that the future for Tanganyika is bright. I hope that the pleas made about the famine which has struck the territory will be adequately and handsomely met by the Government. I extend my very best wishes to the Tanganyika Government. I hope that the country will flourish and that the well-being of its people will be sustained.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: I apologise to the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) for missing the beginning of his speech but I am afraid that my absence was unavoidable. I join with him and other hon. Members on both sides of the House in offering congratulations to the Prime Minister of Tanganyika personally and to his great country.
The Bill is yet another vindication of British colonialism. It is a credit to both Tanganyika and this country. It should be pointed out that we took over that country in 1919 and in the following year we established an Executive Council and in 1926 a Legislative Council. That is fairly rapid development. It stands comparison with any other colonial system in Africa. After the Second World War, Africans participated in that Legislature. They are now taking over the complete


government of the country and we wish them well. During the time that Tanganyika has evolved in the normal democratic way of British colonialism the countries of Eastern Europe, Hungary, Poland and the Baltic States, have had a very different history under the advance of Soviet imperialism.
We in the House consider of certain criteria when we decide what should be required of a country which is about to enter into independence and become a sovereign State in the Commonwealth. These criteria were first suggested by Sir John Macpherson, but have often been discussed in the House. One criterion is that the country should have a national Government acceptable to the people, with a common loyalty and an ability to live harmoniously together as one nation. Tanganyika has that, largely thanks to the leadership of Julius Nyerere.
Great tribute has been paid by the House to that outstanding man. His Christian outlook, his modesty and his sense of humour are quite outstanding among the leaders of that great continent. He will be attacked and he will find it difficult as Prime Minister of an independent country to stand up for the rights of the minorities, but those who know him know that he will shoulder that burden and will fight for the rights of all minority races for the future of Tanganyika depends upon the unity of all her peoples and races.
The second criterion is the true development of education to produce a reasonably informed electorate as well as a national leadership. I have already referred to Mr. Nyerere's leadership. It is, perhaps, a good thing to remember that he was a school teacher. I would therefore pay tribute to the wonderful work done by the Christian missions in establishing and encouraging education in Tanganyika. I hope that as the country goes on to independence, the Christian missions will be able to continue their work of educating the people to take their rightful place in their own country.
The third criterion is that of economic self-reliance, with a reasonable standard of living and an expanding economy. As the financial settlement between this country and Tanganyika has already been referred to, I shall not

detain the House on that subject, but I would add my plea to that of hon. Members who have asked for generosity in helping Tanganyika in this time of drought and difficulty. I understand that the crisis point will be reached in January next, when about half a million people will have to be fed. In addition, about 50 per cent. of the animal stock may die from lack of water. That is a great catstrophe in a country that has already enough difficulties to face, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be as generous as possible in helping Tanganyika financially in these difficult days.
The last criterion is that the country should have an efficient and, if necessary, an imported Civil Service. When I went to Tanganyika about eighteen months ago I was told that those in authority expected that about 30 per cent. of the expatriate British civil servants would stay on after independence. When I made another visit earlier this year I was told that about 70 per cent. would stay. That shows the confidence of the expatriates in Julius Nyerere. Another reason for their confidence is the Act passed by this House by which we undertook the inducement pay of expatriate civil servants.
I want to put two points about the Civil Service to my right hon. Friend. The first is about locally-recruited civil servants. I understand that people recruited as local officers normally need to have two years' residence in the country. A number of these officers were men who had retired from the British Army and who, having served in East Africa, had the required two years' residence. When they signed their contracts they were not really clear—I suppose that they ought to have been—about the disparity in pay and conditions between established or designated officers and local officers.
This disparity became even greater after the Fleming Report, and it may well be that, because of our recent legislative help, it will be more expensive for the Government of Tanganyika to keep on a European or Asian local civil servant than to maintain the services of an expatriate civil servant from this country. I therefore hope that the Government will study the problem of these local civil servants very carefully.
Many of them would like to stay on and become Tanganyikan citizens, but a number would wish to leave the country and return home to Britain. They are unable to do so until they finish their contract, which may still have two or three years to run. They have very little saved because, as I have said, their pay is well tinder that of the established civil servants;many cannot afford the journey home. That being so, I hope that these men, who have served us and Tanganyika so well—and who are now, in fact, training others to take over their work—will be given generous treatment.
The other problem relates to those members of the High Commission, particularly on the railways, who are serving in Tanganyika. My right hon. Friend has received representations to the effect that they undertook to serve the British Government in the Colonial Dependencies, but will now have to serve an independent nation of the Commonwealth, a fact that was not included in their contract. They have been told that they must give six months' notice of termination of employment. I suggest that it might be better to allow them to exercise their own right of choice. Personally, I have far too much faith in Tanganyika, and in its Prime Minister, to think that there would be an exodus of these civil servants from the railways and other undertakings if this right of choice were given.
However, when considering this problem we must recognise that a man serving in one of the big towns such as Dares Salaam can if he is unhappy have access to those in authority and to the British representatives, but many of these men serve right up country in the bush, and, when they read in their local paper something to the effect of the quotation I am about to make, they are bound to wonder about their future. The quotation is from the Daily Nationof September of this year. It is the report of a speech made by the deputy general secretary of the Tanganyika Railway African Union, and it reads:
Warned Mr. Katungutu: ' Our efforts are exhausted. Our members are frustrated, very impatient and are likely to get out of hand after independence'.
This report continues:
Unless Africans controlled the majority of responsible posts, there could be no peace in the industry after uhuru.

That kind of speech makes these men worry as to their security. There is a danger in making six months' notice compulsory that many of them will say, "We cannot take the risk. If we have to wait six months after giving notice we had better give it now. "I ask my right hon. Friend to consider this matter very carefully before Tanganyika finally becomes independent.
I apologise for raising what is, perhaps, a slightly controversial matter, but we in this House have a duty to these civil servants. I believe that their fears are groundless, because I am sure that Tanganyika has a great future as a sovereign member of the Commonwealth of Nations, and I know that all hon. Members wish her well.

6.17 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser): I think that the whole House will agree that this afternoon we have had a debate which, for its informativeness and for the warmth of its good wishes to Tanganyika, has been up to our highest traditions;and that the message going out from here will be a welcoming one to Tanganyika and others of our friends overseas. A great variety of points have been raised, and a great variety of experience has been revealed by, among others, the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer), the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark), who have served for considerable periods in this part of the world.
Nearly every hon. Member has referred to the famine conditions, which are serious in the Northern Province and especially so, perhaps, in the Central Province. As the House will know, the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) was among others who led a deputation asking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to look into this matter. My right hon. Friend will, of course, look into it further, but it would be only fair to say that any hope of Her Majesty's Government being able immediately to offer anything in the way of funds is not very good; in fact, it is rather remote.
We are now coping with many difficulties elsewhere, and we have just made


quite a large settlement with Tanganyika. The right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) and other hon. Members referred to similar situations in grant-aided territories, and in these territories, for the very reason that they are grant-aided, we shall, naturally, meet our obligations.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I would point out that the Secretary of State, who received us very kindly, promised to consider our representations, and it was further stated yesterday that those representations were still under consideration. I hope that we do not have to take it now that the Under-Secretary's statement does not mean that his right hon. Friend will flatly turn down those representations.

Mr. Fraser: I think that what I said was proper. I do not want to raise any false hopes that this will be an easy thing to do—perhaps that is the best way to put it. Negotiations are going on, but I must make the position quite clear to the House, because it is only fair to do so—

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Until Tanganyika gets its independence it is a United Nations Trusteeship Territory. Would it not be possible, therefore, to propose that, while it is a United Nations Trusteeship Territory, the United Nations, through one of its funds, should make a contribution to this urgent need?

Mr. Fraser: That is a point I should like to look at with my legal advisers, but it should be made clear that the problem is one of distribution. With great generosity, the United States has made the food available. The problem is not so much, therefore, one of shortage of food, but one of distribution. I want to make this point clear, because the idea may go out that there is a total shortage of food.
Various points have been raised by hon. Members. One which stands out clearly is that the assistance of Her Majesty's Government will continue to go to Tanganyika after independence. The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) raised that matter in its widest application. It is fair to point out, however, that independence does mean independence. With independence, a new relationship must be established,

and to continue with CD. and W. and other funds which are of a colonial nature would be incorrect and would not be welcome.
We have not found the final answer, but Mr. Nyerere has expressed his acceptance of our help as being, if not generous, satisfactory, and on a very considerable scale. There are certain things that we can continue to do. First, there is the importance, as hon. Members have pointed out, of the continuation of the co-operation of our Overseas Service in helping Tanganyikans to go forward with the training of their own people in the successful Africanisation or localisation of their Civil Service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) pointed out some of the technical difficulties involved here, and I hope to deal with these matters in correspondence with him. There are 2,200 expatriates in Tanganyika, and so far only about 20 per cent. have shown that they intend to leave.
Beyond this, there is the important factor of technical aid. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Cooperation was here during the debate because, in this subject, his Department can be of very considerable assistance to Tanganyika after independence.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) talked of the need for future assistance on certain specific objectives, which, I believe, could be met by my right hon. Friend's Department. The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth talked about the need of training in merchanting and what are to us comparatively simple methods of trading, and so on. Again, my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Co-operation could be of assistance.
Tribute has been paid on both sides to the part played by our colonial servants, from the Governors down to those in the humbler posts. They have made possible the bringing forward of Tanganyika to independence which will finally be attained on 9th December.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) and others have doubts about the wisdom of the course which we have pursued in Tanganyika. I am convinced that it was the right course. There must be something of a gamble in these questions, but I am


convinced that, with Mr. Nyerere, with his Ministers and friends and advisers, with Sir Richard Turnbull and Sir Ernest Vaisey and others, Tanganyika will succeed. To say, however, that by achieving independence all answers will be found is equally untrue.
It would be only appropriate to quote the words of Mr. Nyerere himself at the Dares Salaam conference. He said that independence brought new challenges and difficulties, and went on:
There is nothing soft, nothing easy ahead of us. We Tanganyikans cannot pat ourselves on our nine million backs and think to ourselves that all is over; since we will make nothing of Tanganyika and will set no example to the world unless it be by renewed efforts and hard work of ourselves and of kindness to others.
In that spirit I am sure that the House will accept the Bill and wish the people of Tanganyika well in the times that lie ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Mr. J. E. B. Hill.]

Committee Tomorrow.

TANGANYIKA INDEPENDENCE [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified]

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 {Money Committees).

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to make provision for, and in connection with, the attainment by Tanganyika of fully responsible status within the Commonwealth, it is expedient to authorise such increases in the sums that may be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, raised by borrowing or paid into the Exchequer under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, 1959, as may result from applying the provisions of section two of that Act as to the making of loans to an authority established for two or more colonies to the making of loans to an organisation estabished for the purpose of providing or administering services common to, or relating to matters of common interest to, Tanganyika and one or more territories which are colonies within the meaning of that Act. —[Sir E. Boyle.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA (CONSTITUTION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

6.27 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I have it in Command from the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Bernard Braine): The object of the Bill is to confer upon Her Majesty the power to amend or revoke by Order in Council any part of the Constitution of Southern Rhodesia and to grant a new Constitution. The House has already had two opportunities of discussing the circumstances leading up to the proposals for a new Constitution for Southern Rhodesia.
First, we debated the Report of the Constitutional Conference on 23rd March and then the detailed proposals were set out in two White Papers, on which we had a lively and informed debate on 22nd June. The arguments for and against the proposals were very fully aired. While hon. Members will not expect me, I hope, to repeat all the arguments I used on that occasion, it may be helpful if I recapitulate briefly the events leading up to the new constitutional proposals, and describe what those proposals are, before proceeding to explain the Bill itself.
It was in 1959 that Sir Edgar Whitehead suggested to Her Majesty's Government that the time was ripe for a review of the Constitution under which Southern Rhodesia had been governed since 1923. That Constitution gave Southern Rhodesia a considerable measure of responsible self-government in her internal affairs, subject to certain powers being reserved to Her Majesty's Government here. This has meant that


the Southern Rhodesian Legislature cannot legislate on a specific range of subjects without the Act in each case being reserved for signification of Her Majesty's pleasure.
There is no doubt that Southern Rhodesia has achieved considerable progress under this Constitution. But, equally the conditions under which it was granted, almost forty years ago, have changed out of recognition and are changing still. The African population has grown enormously in numbers, in education and in political awareness, and a new class of African master farmers and business men has emerged. The European population, too, has increased in numbers and also in experience of modern methods of government and in understanding of the demands which a multi-racial society must make upon them. The Europeans know that when Africa is changing around them they, too, must change.
Thus it was inevitable that a point would be reached when Africans would claim a growing share in the government of their country and when the Europeans would feel that their industry, energy, initiative and savings had created an efficient State and a flourishing economy and that the responsibilities which still remained vested in Britain should be transferred to Southern Rhodesia.
Following Sir Edgar's approach, there were long and detailed discussions between our two Governments, culminating in the Constitutional Conference held in Salisbury last February and presided over by my right hon. Friend. All the interested parties, African, European, Asian and Coloured, were represented. The Report of the Conference was contained in a White Paper, Cmnd. 1291, of February, 1961, and it was debated on 23rd March.
I will not go through the Report in detail because the recommendations of that Conference were subsequently embodied in White Papers, along with the measures which have been subsequently agreed and which were left over from the Conference, especially on the subject of land. They were published in the White Papers, Cmnd. 1399 and Cmnd. 1400, which were fully debated in the House and approved by

a majority on 22nd June. The next step was faithfully to embody the proposals contained in the White Papers in a draft Constitution and, I am glad to say, work on this is almost complete.
Everyone is agreed on the necessity for constitutional change in Southern Rhodesia, but I must make it plain that we would never have agreed to give up our reserved powers unless we were certain that they could be replaced by adequate safeguards. My right hon. Friend has demonstrated more than once that the reserved powers are negative in character and have never been used and that we should not imagine that by their use we could promote a constructive, forward-looking, liberal policy unless the people of Southern Rhodesia themselves wanted that. Indeed, we are convinced that the safeguards which we propose should be written into the Constitution will be more effective than the present reserved powers.
As agreed at the Constitutional Conference, these new safeguards will consist of a comprehensive Declaration of Rights and a Constitutional Council. The job of the Consitutional Council is to examine all legislation passed into force after the new Constitution comes into operation, the Council having the power to delay proposed legislation which it considers inconsistent with the Declaration of Rights. Whether any law is declared inconsistent with the Declaration of Rights by the Constitutional Council or not, the law can be declared invalid by the courts. Arrangements will be made for an inalienable right of appeal to the Privy Council.
I know that it is sometimes argued that by their very existence, even if they were never invoked, the reserved powers served a useful purpose and might have prevented legislation from being passed which Governments here in Britain might have felt bound to disallow. There may be something in that argument, but I am sure that hon. Members will agree that powers which have never been used, and which are known to have been difficult to use, are a far less effective deterrent than the existence of courts to which the common man can look for the defence of his rights. One of the most impressive things which emerged from the Constitutional Conference was the


high regard of the African representatives there for the courts and the judges of Southern Rhodesia. The idea that the Declaration of Rights should be enforceable by the courts strongly appealed to them.
In the course of our debate on 22nd June, some hon. Members expressed concern that the Declaration of Rights was not to be made retrospective so that all discriminatory legislation on the Statute Book on the day that the Constitution came into force would be swept away. But that point was agreed by the Constitutional Conference. In coming to a balanced judgment, one must take account of the changes which have been coming to Southern Rhodesia—changes which very few of us, either there or here, would have expected a few years ago—in particular the readiness of Europeans to accept that discrimination must go if one nation, firmly rooted in justice and sharing common loyalties, is to be created in this part of Africa.
This readiness is already finding practical expression. As my right hon. Friend said in the House on 19th March, the Southern Rhodesian Government have already undertaken a systematic review of their Statute Book and have already removed from it a number of Acts of a discriminatory nature, while other discriminatory legislation has been amended.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Is it not a disturbing fact that some of the most oppressive and Draconian legislation was introduced in 1960? Is not that rather discouraging when one considers the future which may be in store?

Mr. Braine: I do not think that that is discouraging. Some discriminatory legislation has already gone, while other discriminatory legislation is being amended. The whole atmosphere in Southern Rhodesia, particularly in the last few months, has changed in a way which very few people would have thought possible only a relatively short time ago. It is fair to make the point that it would not serve the immediate interests of Africans to be indiscriminate in the removal of discrimination, if I may put it that way. If the Declaration of Rights were applied retrospectively, there might be called in doubt a number of Statutes which are,

in fact, advantageous to Africans, or designed for the protection of Africans at this stage of development.
I think that all hon. Members will agree that the test is whether discrimination, where it occurs, is unfair. Our view is that it is far better to approach the task of ending discrimination in an orderly manner than to invite the chaos which would arise from sweeping away all discriminatory legislation and putting into a state of uncertainty a number of laws until their consistency or otherwise with the Declaration of Rights had been pronounced upon by the courts.
The other two features of the Constitution to which 1 wish to refer are the arrangements for representation and the franchise, and for amendment to the Constitution. Under the existing 1923 Constitution, power to make laws regarding the qualifications of voters rests with the Legislative Assembly. The composition of the Assembly is a matter upon which the Legislature can make laws, although Bills for that purpose are required to be reserved for signification of Her Majesty's pleasure.
In the new Constitution provision will be made for certain minimum qualifications for the franchise, and these qualifications cannot be raised, in the sense that they will limit opportunities for registration of voters, so as to decrease the number of voters, without invoking a very powerful new safeguard —a referendum at which the four principal racial groups will have their votes separately counted and which will be declared to have failed unless each group's votes show a majority in favour of the proposal.
On the other hand, a change in the qualifications which would have the effect of giving the vote to more people —an improving change of that kind— will be within the power of the Legislature and it will not be in the power of any one race to hold it up, provided it secures a two-thirds majority in the Assembly.
The effect of these new arrangements for the franchise and the composition of the Assembly should be to give Africans a minimum of 15 seats, perhaps more, in a House of 65 at the first General Election, and no doubt an increasing number after that. They will also give


to a great many more Africans than at present the opportunity to register as voters and to exercise an influence on the election of candidates to fill the remaining seats.
This is a considerable advance on the present position where there are no Africans in the Assembly at all. It provides an opportunity for an increasing number of Africans to make their voices heard, and rightly so, in the running of their country's affairs, but it does so in a way which ensures that each race has to take some account of the views, the interests, and the feelings of the others.
This is the point I want to emphasise. Whatever may be the final racial composition of the Assembly after the first General Election, these franchise proposals are framed expressly to ensure the return of those who put the interests of their country rather than their race first. The system of cross-voting and devaluation which was described in detail in the White Papers means that each candidate has to pay regard to the interests of both racial groups.

Mr. Michael Foot: Moss Side.

Mr. Braine: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman said a moment ago, but if he is questioning the arrangements, perhaps I had better repeat them.
The system of cross-voting and devaluation described in the White Papers ensures that candidates in both "A" roll constituencies and "B" roll electoral districts have to pay regard to the interests of both racial groups if they are to secure election. It is this, more than anything else, which will determine the outlook and behaviour of the new Legislature.
As to amendment of the new Constitution, Southern Rhodesia will be free to do this without reference to Britain, with the exception of amendments which affect the position of the Sovereign and the Governor, and the right of the British Government to safeguard the position regarding international obligations and undertakings given by the Southern Rhodesia Government in respect of loans under the Colonial Stock Acts.
As agreed at the Constitutional Conference, with the exception of certain basic clauses, the Legislative Assembly

will be able to amend any other section of the Constitution by a two-thirds majority of its total membership.
Where the basic clauses are concerned —and they relate to the Declaration of Rights, the Constitutional Council, appeals to the Privy Council, alteration to the franchise, safeguards on the subject of land, the security of Civil Service pensions, and amendment of the Constitution itself—it will be necessary, in addition to securing the two-thirds majority of the Assembly, to obtain the agreement of a majority of each of the four principal racial communities. The Constitutional Conference thought that that was an adequate safeguard, and we do too.
Alternatively, if it so decides by a two-thirds majority, the Legislative Assembly may, instead of referring the issue to a referendum, seek the approval of the British Government for the constitutional changes they desire, but the British Government of the day will be at liberty to decide whether they consider it would be more appropriate to refer the matter to a referendum of the four racial communities.
I come now to the Bill itself. Perhaps I should first explain why a Bill is necessary. The present Constitution of Southern Rhodesia was granted in 1923 by Letters Patent made in exercise of the Royal Prerogative. I understand that it is an established constitutional principle that once the Crown has conferred by Letters Patent responsible government on a dependent territory, it is considered to have parted with its prerogative right to legislate in regard to those matters which under the Letters Patent are placed within the competence of the local legislature.
In the present Southern Rhodesia Constitution, the Crown reserved to itself full power by the prerogative to revoke, alter, or amend, only twelve of the sixty-four Sections of the Constitution. The remaining Sections can be amended only by the Legislature of Southern Rhodesia.
To introduce the new Constitution, therefore, it would have been possible for the Crown to have amended those twelve sections and for the Southern Rhodesia Legislature to have amended the remainder of the Constitution.


Although it is intended to retain the substance of a good deal of what was in the original Constitution, it would not be practicable to introduce the far-reaching changes which we and Southern Rhodesians desire by way of further amendments to the existing Constitutional documents. The Government of Southern Rhodesia have therefore requested that the new Constitution should be contained as a whole in a new document, and we have agreed. This can be made possible only by an Act of Parliament, for the reasons I have explained.
Clause 1 (1) of the Bill therefore confers on Her Majesty the power to grant a new Constitution by Order in Council. Hon. Members may have noticed that specific provision is made for the Order to confer on the Southern Rhodesia Legislature power to make laws having extraterritorial effect. This is necessary and desirable because the present lack of extra-territorial application of Southern Rhodesia's legislation makes for a certain amount of administrative difficulty. One example which springs to mind is that at present there is no power to punish in Southern Rhodesia a person belonging to that country who happens, whilst outside the country, to perjure himself in an affidavit used in Southern Rhodesia. This is clearly an unsatisfactory state of affairs, and the Bill will enable a change to be made in this and similar anomalous situations.
Clause 1 (2) makes it possible for the Order in Council containing the new Constitution to specify how that Constitution can be amended or revoked in the future. Thus it will provide for the Legislature of Southern Rhodesia to have full power to amend all Sections of the Constitution except those which refer to the constitutional functions of the Queen and the Governor. These Sections can be amended only by Order in Council. The effect of the subsection is to make it quite clear that in future the new Constitution will be amendable only by these two methods.
If after a new Constitution were granted it was desired to amend it in a way not authorised by the Order in Council, a further Act of our Parliament would be necessary. There would, of course, be no question of the British Government asking Parliament to legislate in a situa-

tion like that without the agreement of the Southern Rhodesia Government. That follows a convention clearly set out in the introduction to the White Paper, Cmnd. 1399, which the House debated in June
Clause 1 (3) takes us back to the case where, after the new Constitution has been granted by Order in Council, it is desired to alter by means of an amending Order in Council any of the Sections reserved specifically to the Queen under that Constitution. The subsection provides that such an amending Order shall be a Statutory Instrument within the meaning of the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946. That means that it will have to be laid in Parliament before coming into operation, and it will have to be properly printed and numbered.
Clause 1 (4) provides for the laying before Parliament, after being made, of the Order in Council containing the Constitution and any other instrument made subsequently under the authority of that Order. This will place these Orders in Council on precisely the same footing as those made under the British Settlement Acts and the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, under which the Crown is empowered to legislate generally for our overseas dependencies.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does this mean that the Order in Council must be made by affirmative Resolution in the House, or is it subject to the negative procedure?

Mr. Braine: I am glad that the hon. Member has made that point, because it enables me to explain the matter. It is not the custom for Orders in Council which are constitutional instruments to be debatable. The normal custom—and it was followed in this case—is to lay the proposals before the House in the form of White Papers, which are debatable. It is always within the competence of Parliament to put down a Motion.

Mr. Silverman: Does that mean that unless a Motion is put down and the Government find time for it to be debated, once the Bill is enacted any changes made by the Government by Order in Council are not subject to scrutiny or debate, or a vote of the House? Is that right?

Mr. Braine: Broadly speaking, it is— and it is right that it should be so. I


believe that this is the third occasion on which we have debated this matter. The Constitution which will be promulgated in the Order in Council will follow faithfully the proposals set out in the White Paper which the House has already had the opportunity of examining and debating. We cannot go on endlessly debating a Constitution which has been agreed with the territory concerned.
My right hon. Friend proposes to advise Her Majesty to grant, by Order in Council under the Bill, once enacted, a Constitution which will follow the White Papers in every detail. It will include a few minor points for which provision has to be made, which were not mentioned in the White Papers, since these, of necessity, were expressed in layman's language. This is merely to obtain the necessary legal precision. The important Declaration of Rights, however, will be incorporated in its entirety, although there may be a few insignificant drafting amendments. Once the Bill becomes law the Order in Council will be made here without delay. The way will then be clear for the Southern Rhodesian Government to take the necessary steps, as set out in the introduction to the White Paper, Cmnd 1400, to bring the new Constitution into force.
In commending the Bill to the House, may I say that the Constitution represents a great forward step for the people of Southern Rhodesia. The essence of the matter is that while both the franchise and representation are widened to give Africans greater opportunities than they have had before, the alteration is made in this case in a way which lays stress on the importance of all races in that country recognising their interdependence, at the same time ensuring responsibility in the direction of their Government. I hope, therefore, that nothing is said in the course of this debate which will discourage Africans from registering as electors, under the new Constitution, and so exercising the opportunities which are undoubtedly theirs if they choose to grasp them.

6.55 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: 1 beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House cannot assent to a Bill which is intended to implement constitutional proposals

which fail to provide for the African people of Southern Rhodesia either adequate safeguards against discrimination or adequate representation in the legislature.
Hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House have weighed carefully the proposals set out in Cmnd. 1400 to see whether they afford the whole population of Southern Rhodesia safeguards which are adequate to replace the very substantial reserve powers at present vested in Her Majesty. Weighing the two, we have come to the conclusion that those safeguards are by no means adequate. We have not come lightly to that conclusion, and we approach the debate with the anxiety that anything we say in the course of it will not aggravate the already difficult position in Southern Rhodesia. But we feel it is our duty, having become thoroughly convinced that the proposals are not adequate, to voice our reasons in this Chamber, so that they may be known and so that the answer may be given by the Secretary of State tonight, if there is an answer.
As the Joint Under-Secretary has already said, this is not the first occasion on which these proposals have come before the House for debate. The report of the conference was first discussed, and then the Government laid the two White Papers, Cmnd. 1399 and Cmnd. 1400, to which reference was made by the hon. Gentleman in his opening speech. Those two White Papers were also the subject of discussion. The Minister traced briefly what happened since the constitutional conference took place, but he did not mention that a referendum on the proposals was held in July of this year, and that the referendum produced a 2–1 vote in favour of the proposals. The point I want to make on that vote is that about 40,000 votes were cast for and 20,000 against, that is to say, a total of over 60,000. But the National Democratic Party also held its own referendum, decisively rejecting the proposals. On any view, that cannot be regarded as a satisfactory situation. Although the proposals were approved, the Africans in their own referendum decisively rejected them, and yet in the referendum approving the proposals only 6,000 Africans were qualified to vote.
I make that introductory point because I want later to submit that the new A


and B roll proposals embodied in the Constitution, although undoubtedly an improvement on the existing situation—15 votes being anchored to the B roll— are by no means adequate to meet the need. There is a very long way to go. I want to go back to that later. I greatlv hope that in criticising the proposals now under consideration we shall not be thought to be anti-European. That taunt has been thrown across the Floor of the House before and it is utterly unmerited. It is elementary and obvious that it is in the interests of the European population no less, perhaps even more, than in the interest of the African population that there should be a peaceful situation, in Southern Rhodesia which could lead to a lasting, a fruitful and a real cooperation between the races.
If these proposals leave Southern Rhodesia in a situation in which the vast majority of the population, about 3 million Africans, are not content, then that is a situation which augurs ill not only for the Africans but even for the Europeans. Therefore, in criticising the proposals we do so in a genuine desire to try to point the way to something which will lead to the really desirable situation which hon. Members of both sides of the House desire to see.
I say "on both sides of the House" and I include particularly the Secretary of State, because he obviously did his best, in the course of difficult negotiations, to try to get a satisfactory result. In criticising, I do not criticise his endeavours but the result which he has produced. In my view, and in the view of hon. Members on this side of the House, that situation does not measure up to the minimum requirements which were indispensable. After all, those minimum requirements should create a situation in which the Law and Order Maintenance Act, which led to the resignation of the Chief Justice of Southern Rhodesia, should not be necessary;a situation in which Detention Ordinance should not be necessary;in which the Vagrancy Act should not be necessary;in which the Monckton Commission should not think it appropriate to say, speaking of federation and with particular reference to Southern Rhodesia, that it was racial discrimination which was making the further passage of federation a difficult one;and, as I say, making

particular reference to Southern Rhodesia.
That is a situation which I am quite sure the Secretary of State deplores as much as anybody else but which exists undoubtedly and which these proposals, in the submission I make to the House, will certainly not go anywhere near the necessary lengths to improve. We are bound to criticise these proposals because as the Minister has already said this is our last opportunity. They are only proposals. We have not the text of the Constitution before us. The Order in Council will not be subject to any parliamentary procedure. The proposals will be embodied in the context of an Order in Council which we shall not have an opportunity to discuss in this House. The only language which we have which will form part of the Order in Council is that contained in appendices 1 and 2 to Cmnd. 1400 which contain proposals for the suffrage, and in Appendix 2, the proposed Declaration of Rights.
I understand from the Minister that even that language is to be subject perhaps to some slight changes. We do not know what the changes are or whether we should regard them as slight. They may be of importance because a great deal can turn on a phrase used or a particular expression embodied in the text of a Constitution. So here we have our last opportunity to voice our criticism.
In approaching this debate I start from the position of the Government and and I will say why in a moment. The present situation is that the United Kingdom Parliament has substantial powers of reserving Measures so far as discrimination is concerned. I should like to read out the relevant part of Section 28 of the Southern Rhodesia Constitution which vests in the Parliament of the United Kingdom the most effective powers of preventing discrimination against any section of the population of Southern Rhodesia. There has to be reserved for the Crown any law
whereby natives may be discriminated against or made liable to any conditions, disabilities or restrictions to which persons of European descent are not also subjected or made liable.
It could not go further than that. That is about as comprehensive and drastic as any language could be. It is that language which we are asked to agree should be forgone. It is that power


which is to be lost to the United Kingdom Parliament, as I think for ever, and it is only one of many powers which enables the United Kingdom Parliament in the terms of the 1923 Constitution to control the legislation of the Southern Rhodesian Parliament.
It is said, the Minister has repeated it again, that that power has never been exercised, and that is perfectly true. But it has equally been pointed out in reply to that contention that its very existence has been of great importance in modifying policies in Southern Rhodesia. It has always been there and any Southern Rhodesia Legislature has known that there is a control which in case of need could be exercised over legislation passed by the Southern Rhodesia Legislature.
I would add this further comment to what has been said by the Minister. We are now faced with a new Africa. The pace has quickened. It has not been exercised in the past but we now have a situation in which African countries are, one after the other, gaining their independence. We welcomed one to independence this afternoon. Even in those countries which have not gained their independence substantial advance has been made, particularly in the matter of franchise, over the franchise proposals contained in the White Paper which we are discussing.
It is, as I say, in those circumstances that I start from the position which the Secretary of State earlier took as his test. We start from the situation that it was Sir Edgar Whitehead himself who, in 1959, proposed to the Government of the United Kingdom that the Government should cede their reserve power. If the initiative had not come from the Southern Rhodesia Government, nothing would have been done about the ceding of these powers. It was the original proposal made by the Southern Rhodesia Government which has brought the whole thing before this House.
The test that was then propounded was stated by the Minister of State in May, 1960, to this House when he said that the attitude of the United Kingdom Government to the initiative of Sir Edgar Whitehead was that

their ability to accept a scheme which would reduce or withdraw the powers vested in the Secretary of State in relation to the Southern Rhodesia Constitution would depend on whether arrangements could be devised and agreed by both Governments which would provide effective alternative safeguards, particularly in respect of discriminatory legislation and land rights, and in respect of amendment of the Constitution."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 9th May, 1960, Vol. 623, c. 31.]
The Government's attitude, which I adopt for the purpose of this argument, was that they would not cede their reserve powers unless effective alternative safeguards particularly with regard to discrimination were substituted for those ceded reserve powers;and the question raised in this debate is whether effective adequate alternative safeguards have been found and are to be seen in the proposals. The answer which I would give to that question, and I believe right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House would give, is an unhesitating negative.
May I make the comment that when these reserve powers are ceded, they are ceded once and for all. No doubt theoretically, but only theoretically, this House and this Parliament could, by legislation at Westminster, overset any Southern Rhodesia Constitution. Theoretically, this Parliament could annul the Statute of Westminster. Everyone knows that the likelihood of that being done is nil, and so it is perfectly clear that when these powers contained in the existing Constitution are ceded, as the Government intend, the Southern Rhodesian people are being told, in effect, that they will never be taken up again by the United Kingdom Government. They are ceded once and for all, just as much as in the case of the Commonwealth countries the Statute of Westminster ceded to them their sovereignty. That is really the situation which we have to face.
What is offered to the people of Southern Rhodesia in place of those powers? There are, substantially, two arrangements. One is the Constitutional Council and the other the Declaration of Rights. I should like to examine each in turn to see whether I can support the proposal I advanced that they do not constitute adequate alternative safeguards.
Let us take the Constitutional Council first. It has been pointed out in debate


before—and accepted by Ministers, as it must be, because it is plain on the terms of the proposals that it is the case—that the functions of the Constitutional Council are purely advisory. It has no real compulsive power at all. All that it can do is to report to the Speaker, who must lay a report before the Legislative Assembly if, in its view, a measure appears to be discriminatory. But the Legislative Assembly can quite easily overcome the report's effect either by nevertheless affirming the measure by a two-thirds majority or, six months later, affirming it by a simple majority. With regard to existing legislation on the Statute Book, the Constitutional Council can undoubtedly report on it, but if it does so all that happens is that its report is laid before the Legislative Assembly, which may completely disregard it. So it is purely advisory in character and it cannot even give any effective advice, to the limited extent that its advice is in any event effective, in the case of existing legislation.
The third qualification is that it cannot, for some reason or other, tender any advice with regard to money Bills.
In an earlier debate, that position was put to the Secretary of State. It was pointed out that such a Constitutional Council—which could do no more than advise and whose report it was easy to override and which the Legislature could, by a simple two-thirds majority, override—created little in the way of a safeguard. The Secretary of State's answer was that it was thought undesirable to create a sort of alternative to the courts of law in Southern Rhodesia and, therefore, he accepted that the Constitutional Council should be only advisory. He went on to say, and I cite his own language, because it is important for an evaluation of these safeguards:
The real safeguard which we are providing for the observation of human rights is contained not here …
not in the Constitutional Council, he meant
… but in paragraph 7 …
He was speaking of the Report of the Southern Rhodesia Constitutional Conference, Cmnd. 1291, which says any law
… passed after the enactment of the new Constitution, which contravened the pro-

visions of the Declaration of Rights, should be invalid.
I can understand the position the Secretary of State is taking. He is saying that the Constitutional Council is really little more than an opinion-forming agency which will focus opinion on discriminatory measures. But its opinion can be disregarded. It would be useful if it focussed opinion on discriminatory measures and its opinions could be followed by effective action by those discriminated against.
But through the new franchise proposals which we are discussing, only fifteen seats will be anchored to the B roll and, therefore, by a two-thirds majority—which cannot be hindered by the presence of the fifteen African National Democratic seats—the Legislative Assembly can get its way. So the value of the Constitutional Council as an opinion-forming body is a very qualified value.
The Secretary of State's main reliance is on the Declaration of Rights. He is, in effect, saying in justification of these proposals: "The Constitutional Council has a useful function in the way of forming public opinion of a very limited character, but the real lynch pin on which I pin my faith in the value of these new proposals is the Declaration of Rights." The Secretary of State points out that under the law any measure which conflicts with the provisions of the Declaration of Rights will be an invalid measure.
It is obvious that to support such a view of these proposals one must be able to pin one's complete faith in the provisions contained in the Declaration of Rights. If that Declaration was really stringent in its language I would accept that the Secretary of State's answer would go a long distance. But when one examines the Declaration of Rights—the text of which is to be found at Appendix 2 of the proposals in Cmnd. 1400— I put it to the House that it is so qualified in its terms and has such enormous exceptions to its operation that it is rather threadbare as a protection to those in danger of being discriminated against.
The text is to be found on page 39 of Appendix 2 and contains a definition of what is to be considered a discriminatory measure. May I first, having pointed to the provision which says that


no written law shall contain any discriminatory provision, invite the House to consider what is not regarded as discriminatory. I hope that I will not cite too much dreary legal language, but the following is not to be regarded as discriminatory:
… any law … to the extent that the law in question makes provision …
that persons of a particular description, and so on, are
… subjected to a condition, restriction or disability to which persons of another such description are not made subject, …" which, having regard to such of the following matters as are relevant in the circumstances of the case, that is to say
and then follow four sub-paragraphs describing the matters in question—the subsection then continues
which is reasonably justifiable either in the interests of Southern Rhodesia as a whole or in order to secure the protection …
of particular people. It becomes important to see what those matters are, for they are as wide as they could be. Subparagraph (a)reads
… the nature of the condition, restriction, disability, privilege or advantage as the case may be;
Sub-paragraph (b)refers to.
.… any special circumstances appertaining to persons of that or any other description;
sub-paragraph (c) to
.… the stage of social or economic development for the time being reached by the various descriptions of persons affected;
and sub-paragraph (d)to
.… the state for the time being of the economy of Southern Rhodesia.
What does all that come to? It means that if those who seek to support a law which is said to be discriminatory can say, for example, that if one looks at the nature of the restriction and can show that the restriction is reasonably justifiable in the interests of Southern Rhodesia as a whole, the measure is not discriminatory. I put it to the House that that drives a coach and horses right through the anti-discrimination provisions. As I say, if one can say that the interests of Southern Rhodesia require that one should impose this, that or the other restriction on certain groups of people, and if one can show that the type of restriction is reasonably justifiable in the interests of Southern Rhodesia—the Legislature, being the

arbiter, in effect, as to what is in the interests of Southern Rhodesia—the measure is not discriminatory according to this definition. That is only a threadbare protection. What remains as discriminatory whittles down to very little indeed. I submit that the idea that this is going to protect the African population of Southern Rhodesia is very nearly illusory. I hope I do not exaggerate my language. I have considered it carefully.
I am aware that there is a proviso to that paragraph that I have just read out, but, without going into the minutiae of it, I think that, on reading it, it becomes apparent that it is only a limited proviso and will not do much to redress the wrong to which I have been pointing.
I have another criticism of it. Who are the people to judge whether, for example, because of the social developments of particular groups of people, it is reasonably justifiable in the interests of Southern Rhodesia that a particular disability should be imposed upon them? They are to be the judges. The right hon. Gentleman claims credit for the fact that the judges have to decide that. I criticise that strongly as meaning that judges are, in effect, being dragged into the sphere of politics. Whether a particular restriction, for example in view of the economic situation in Southern Rhodesia, is in the interests of Southern Rhodesia is a matter of political judgment.
It is utterly undesirable that judges should be expected to form judgments upon matters of that sort. How are they to do it? Are they to have Ministers of the Southern Rhodesian Government coming before them as witnesses to say what, in their opinion, is in the interest of Southern Rhodesia and what sort of restrictions are justifiable as measured by the interests of Southern Rhodesia, or are they to form an opinion upon that matter drawing upon their own experience and bringing their own personal judgment into the matter?
I submit that it is utterly undesirable that the judiciary should be brought into the political arena and have placed upon them the function of forming what really must be in many cases purely political judgments. I am aware that in our own judicial system sometimes


judges have to decide by reference to what, in their view, is the public interest, but those cases are limited in number and it has been said on many occasions that it is unfair to put that sort of burden upon judges.
My second criticism of the Declaration of Rights is that it does not apply to existing legislation, as the Secretary of State has said. It does not apply, for example, to the Land Apportionment Act, to the Vagrancy Act, to the Detention Order, or to the Law and Order Maintenance Act. All those are outside its scope. They can go on being used, so one apprehends, despite all the protection which has been embodied in the scope of these proposals.
I want to make a further criticism which I really put in the form of a question with regard to this Declaration of Rights. The wording is:
ߪ a provision shall be regarded as discriminatory if by or as an inevitable consequence of that provision persons of a particular description by race, tribe, colour or creed are prejudiced
by being subjected to a disability.
I took the opportunity of acquainting the Minister that I proposed to ask the question which I shall now put and which I hoped would be answered because it seemed to be one of importance. I thought it was a matter of importance that no misleading impressions should go out from this House, and the hon. Gentleman undertook to look at the point.
The point that I raise is this. Does that mean that no Measure is discriminatory in the sense of this definition unless it actually names a particular race or tribe—that it is not discriminatory, for example, unless it says "Africans shall not be allowed to go into a cinema", or whatever the prohibtion may be? Is it necessary that the word "Africans" shall be used. The wording is
persons of a particular description by race, tribe, colour or creed.
If that is what it means, it is really extremely limited in effect.
If we look at the various Acts to which I referred, the Vagrancy Act, for example, so far as I am aware, that does not mention Africans. Even if that were an enactment passed in the future, it would not be discriminatory within the

meaning of this definition. I hope that we shall have an answer to that point.
I suggest that the effect of the definition, if it is to have any real force, ought to be to make discriminatory any act which has the result, whether particular people are named by race or not, of affecting them adversely and unfairly in comparison with persons of other races. That is the way in which a number of these anti-discrimination provisions are worded, for example in the Constitution of Ceylon.
The Joint Under-Secretary justified the text of this Declaration of Rights by saying that it was broadly based on the text of the Sierra Leone and the Nigerian Constitutions. I have compared those two, and, without wearying the House by going through a detailed comparison, I would say that they do not conform, as I read them, to the text which has been chosen for the purpose of this provision. I ask the Government, what do they mean? I hope that they mean this Measure to be understood in the more extended sense and not the very limited and not very useful sense. If they mean it to be understood in the more extensive sense, I press upon them that language should be selected which makes it abundantly plain that it is the extended sense that is intended, namely, that a Measure is discriminatory whether or not it names a particular race or creed, if, in fact, its result is to subject a race or creed to some disability to which others are not subjected.
I pass to the question of the franchise. I agree that it is much better that there should be 15 national democratic seats than none;15 is 15 more than nil, and to that extent it is an improvement. I quite recognise that the entrenched provisions, as they are called, of this Constitution cannot be amended except, as the Minister has said, by a two-thirds majority and a referendum. But many of the provisions of this Constitution are not entrenched. The entrenched ones are only a small minority.
Under the terms of the new constitutional proposal, with the A and the B rolls with the 15 African seats as they no doubt will be, the Constitution could be amended easily by a two-thirds majority being obtained despite a full complement of 15 African votes in the opposite direction. The


very fact that there is a B roll created, which presumably involves that if the B roll were universal in scope it would nearly always produce African members, is surely a sufficient condemnation of staying there. That is a situation which cannot be allowed to go on. There must be further progress as quickly as possible to something in the nature of universal suffrage. In a population of about 230,000 non-Africans as against nearly 3 million Africans, 15 is, in the long run, at any rate, not a proper proportion to 50 non-African seats.
I should like to put this question. If these proposals are adopted, if the reserve powers which the Government still possess are relinquished and if the matter is really left to the 50 members in the Legislature of Southern Rhodesia, whilst I accept and do not wish to run away from the fact that there has been substantial improvement in various directions in Southern Rhodesia in the way of a more equitable social system, nevertheless, if the matter is left in that way is there much prospect of the franchise being enlarged?
I should like to know what Ministers think. It may be that they will say they think there is a prospect, in which case I shall rejoice to hear it and wait to see if their anticipations turn out to be justified or not. But I very much fear there is little prospect indeed and that the result of the Government of the United Kingdom releasing their reserve powers, and by implication releasing for ever the responsibilities which go with the possession of those reserve powers, will simply mean that the pace of progress in Southern Rhodesia will be slowed down and the exasperation of the African population will be built up. I hope that I am wrong about that, but it seems to me that, although the Minister has by patient endeavour managed to obtain this degree of concession, the concession does not go anything like far enough.
Concentrating my argument upon those two aspects of the proposals, the anti-discrimination provisions and the franchise provisions, I think that it can be said, without looking at the rest, that it is perfectly apparent that the constitutional proposals now before the House are inadequate and are not a proper

substitute for the present reserved powers which the Government possess.

7.30 p.m.

Sir Lionel Heald: It is tempting to reply to the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) in detail and at length, but the time available for this debate is limited and I know that several of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite wish to speak. I have in mind also that this is really a replay. We had this argument out on 22nd June and the two points made then were the same points which have been made today, first, that the safeguards are insufficient, and, second, that the franchise is insufficient, and those points were rejected on that occasion by the House. The matter was gone into. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will reply in due course, as he has been asked to do by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and it would not be right for me to duplicate the discussion. I should not like to say whether the arguments have been put better today than they were last time. The fact is that they were put last time and we went into them.
On the matter of the safeguards, it was explained on the last occasion that we were dealing here not with a Protectorate but with a virtually self-governing Colony which has been such since 1923 and, in those circumstances, the use of reserved powers is almost unheard of. The right hon. and learned Gentleman himself torpedoed somewhat his own argument about it when he said, "Theoretically, one can repeal the Statute of Westminster, or act contrary to it, but, of course, one never does". The same applies to the reserved powers, and, as was said on the previous occasion, there are to be very much better safeguards in the Council and in the Bill of Rights than are provided by the remnants of the reserved powers. I shall pursue that question no further, and I certainly shall not spend time upon the franchise.
It ought to be said that very little justice has been done by the right hon. and learned Gentleman to Southern Rhodesia. The present position ought to be pointed out. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the Monckton Commission, of which I was


a member, and he referred to our attitude towards discrimination. We strongly criticised Southern Rhodesia, but it is right and proper now to recognise what has followed the criticism— I do not say that it has been the result of it—and point out that the position today is strikingly different. No one would think, after listening to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who paid no more than a few moments' lip-service to it, that there has been a considerable change.
The Monckton Commission in its Report, Chapter 11, paragraph 221, said:
… the maintenance of the colour bar and the prevalence of discrimination in Southern Rhodesia has turned the Africans of the Northern territories, and many of those within Southern Rhodesia itself, against the Europeans who control it. It follows that no new form of association is likely to succeed unless Southern Rhodesia is willing to make drastic t changes in its racial policies.
Later, the Commission said:
We strongly urge, therefore, that, if it is the genuine desire of the Europeans of Southern Rhodesia to preserve an association with their neighbours in the north, they should remove as quickly as possible from their laws and practices all instances of unfair racial discrimination.
The main matters on which we insisted in the following paragraphs were the Pass laws, the public services and the Southern Rhodesia Land Apportionment Act. We suggested, also, albeit with due care because of the special position of Southern Rhodesia, that there should be a Bill of Rights and a Council, preferably in each territory.
What has actually happened in the last year? It is right that we, and certainly someone who was associated with that criticism in the Monckton Report, should be fair and accurate about the facts. First, the Indaba took place, the so-called national convention, at which the chiefs and representatives of the whole population met and arrived at some remarkable results. Sir Edgar Whitehead said on that occasion that what had happened that day would have been inconceivable three years before. As from a date earlier this year, all posts in the Civil Service have been open to Africans. The Pass Laws, to which I have just referred, have virtually been abolished. The Land Apportionment Act has been amended in a very important particular, allowing Africans

to hold land in the European townships. The cinema laws have been very largely repealed and many cinemas are now open to Africans.
There was, of course, a great change in the whole atmosphere after the referendum because the strike organised by the N.P.D. did not come to anything. There has been a general improvement in the atmosphere in every direction.
On 5th October, there was the Annual Congress of the Southern Rhodesia United Federal Party. I stress that it was the Southern Rhodesia United Federal Party because the attitude of the U.F.P. in another place is rather different. It is interesting to note that, in a newspaper which, I am sure, will be accepted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman as a reliable authority, the Guardian,it was reported that there were 103 African delegates at this congress representing 25 per cent. of the whole, and they were largely instrumental in getting several very progressive resolutions adopted. The African delegates said that the highest priority should be given to the repeal of the Land Apportionment Act and its replacement by legislation better designed to cope with present conditions. That is only one example.
Sir Edgar Whitehead in his speech at the end of the Congress said that something of that kind was essential and that Southern Rhodesia's present methods were much too slow. The idea of white supremacy was, he said, as dead as the dodo, and he added, according to the report in the Guardian,
If you want someone to continue to operate that policy, you will have to get another Prime Minister".
We can go back to things which happened a year or two years ago, but, surely, we ought to appreciate what has happened when we find Sir Edgar Whitehead, in particular, talking in that way and his party behaving in that way. I should have thought that we ought to approach the matter in a spirit rather different from that adopted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who—I say it in no unfriendly way, as I am sure he knows—approached it from a rather legal point of view.
We have spent half a day celebrating the fact that we are able to remove our apron strings from a country and to let


it be independent and, we hope, a part of the Commonwealth. As I have said, Southern Rhodesia's virtual independence dates from 1923, but, of course, its existence goes much further back than that. Should not we encourage this Colony to have a constitution of its own to work?
As to the question of the reserved powers, can it really be healthy to have the opportunity of having wrangles here all the time about what should be done there if there is machinery, and, as I see it, much more effective machinery, that can be used at the other end?
I emphasise that we have some evidence that there is the possibility of building a multi-racial State in Southern Rhodesia. There is nowhere else at present where such a thing is showing any chance of coming to fruition. If the attitude which has been adopted today continues to be adopted, it is very unlikely that there ever will be. I therefore suggest that we should give the Constitution a fair chance. No good is done by saying that it is too late, that this is a death bed repentance, and so on. Let us try to look forward. On a day when we are discussing the future of the Commonwealth, let us continue to be logical throughout.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Donald Wade: I am as anxious as the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) that a genuine multi-racial society shall evolve in Southern Rhodesia. This Bill is the last stage in a process which is intended to provide for the grant of a new Constitution in that territory. It will involve the giving up of reserved powers. I think that it is clear that it is the last stage, since we have already been told that the Order in Council under Clause 1 (4) will not be debatable.
Although these reserved powers have not been exercised for many years, I think that we must examine very carefully legislation which is designed to abandon them. As long as they exist, we here in the British Parliament have the right to be consulted on constitutional changes. We have a say in future constitutional proposals. That is the signifi-

cance of the existence of these reserved powers. I said that we had the "right" to be consulted. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate if I had used the word "duty", because surely the principle of trusteeship still applies to this territory, as it does to Nyasaland. Certainly, the Africans do not see any reason for making a distinction between Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland and Southern Rhodesia. It is in the light of that, and recognising the duty which falls on us that we must consider the new Constitution. I hope that in considering it I shall not be too legalistic.
If the proposed Constitution were just a step towards greater equality of treatment as between the whites and the blacks in Southern Rhodesia, I would say that these proposals have much to commend them. They are a step in the right direction, and I do not think that I can be fairer than that. But is it just a first stage? Are we satisfied that the development of this Constitution will continue towards a genuine multi-racial society?
I think that we must consider the importance of the number of seats in the Legislature. The Africans will, in effect, be entitled to 15 out of 65 seats. That means that we are handing over our share in the responsibility for the future constitutional development—we are giving up our reserve powers—at a time when the Africans will have less than two-thirds of the seats. There is, therefore, no assurance that progress will take place on the lines that we would wish to see.
I do not propose to detain the House with a number of quotations, but I will, if I may, burden the House with one. It is from the Africa Digest of October, 1961. It refers to some observations of Mr. Garfield Todd. It states:
Writing in the Liberal News of 26th July, Mr. Garfield Todd asked: "What yardstick does Britain use when determining who is ready for self-government? In Central Africa today almost all Blacks and at least some Whites are frustrated, despairing or dangerously angry because of what Britain is doing, or is permitting to be done in our part of Africa. Why has Britain done this thing, is a question I constantly hear from African leaders and African followers. Why does she act in one way in Tanganyika and in a different manner in the Rhodesias?'
A little later Mr. Todd says:
They"—


that is, the Africans—
point to Sir Edgar Whitehead's assurance to the Whites that this Constitution"—
that is, the Constitution we are discussing—
will be the final concession to Africans and that the White Government will never give a franchise to Africans in Southern Rhodesia comparable to the one already granted in Nyasaland, where over 100,000 Africans will soon go to the polls.
I should like to know whether we can be told that that reported speech by Sir Edgar Whitehead is correct. If we cannot have such an assurance, are we right in giving up these reserve powers at a time when the African representation is to be limited to 15 seats? It is clear that the Africans will be unable by themselves to prevent the Assembly from over-riding objections by the Constitutional Council to discriminatory laws. That is the fundamental objection which we are entitled, and I think bound, to debate this evening.
That is the background to the points that I wish to raise about the proposed constitutional changes. I should like to refer to the detailed proposals in Command 1400. I hope that I shall not be thought to be too legalistic. First, I turn to Chapter VII headed "Amendment of the Constitution", which begins on page 24. In Clause 77 there are the specially entrenched provisions, which include the entrenched clauses
relating to the Declaration of Rights, Appeals to the Privy Council, the Constitutional Council, the Judiciary ….
Clause 75 (3) reads:
Any Constitutional Bill which repeals or amends the specially entrenched sections of the Constitution … will require not only the two-thirds vote referred to above, but will either have to be approved in a referendum by a majority of those voting in each of the four principal racial groups in the Colony, or the Bill will have to be reserved by the Governor for the Queen's Assent.
The Clause then refers to this latter procedure. It concludes by stating that
Such an Address may be moved only by a Minister after signification to the Assembly that Her Majesty has consented to the moving thereof.
There appears to be this alternative procedure. Who will advise Her Majesty in those circumstances? Presumably, it will not be the British Prime Minister. I assume that it will be the

Prime Minister of the Southern Rhodesian Government and that, therefore, this assent by the Queen will not be a matter in which the British Government are in any way concerned. That is my first question.
I am wholly in favour of the idea of a Declaration of Rights. I would like to see a Declaration of Human Rights incorporated in every Constitution throughout the Commonwealth. The general idea is one that should be welcome. I have, however, one or two queries to raise. On page 41 of the White Paper, Clause 14 states that
Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of any of the provisions of sections 1 to 12 of this Declaration—
(a)if the law in question was in force immediately before the appointed day and has continued in force at all times since that day.
I do not need to go over the ground which has already been covered. In effect, that means that discriminatory laws which are in existence today will not be affected by this Declaration of Rights. We are bound to express concern about that. I quite understand (hat it might be impracticable to remove at once all laws that may be deemed to be discriminatory, but in considering the value of this Declaration of Rights we must recognise that it in no way overrules existing laws.
In Clause 11 of the Declaration of Rights, we have the problem of interpreting the words, at the end of subsection (2),
wholly or mainly attributable to the description by race, tribe, colour or creed of the persons concerned.
If that means that a provision is discriminatory only if it refers specifically to race, tribe, colour or creed, obviously it will not cover all legislation of a discriminatory nature. For example, financial legislation and taxation may, in effect, be discriminatory.
That brings me to subsection (3, a)of subsection 11, which refers directly to money Bills. The subsection states that
Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to any law to the extent that it relates to any of the following matters".
The first is:
any matter such as is mentioned in any of paragraphs (a)to (e)of the definition of a Money Bill".


I do not want to suggest that this loophole will be used deliberately to maintain discriminatory legislation, but if, for example, a poll tax were to be imposed, it would be extremely discriminatory and would be outside the ambit of the words
mainly attributable to the description by race, tribe, colour or creed".
On the subject of money Bills, when one turns to the functions of the Constitutional Council, on pages 16 and 17 of the White Paper, we see that money Bills will be exempted from submission to the Constitutional Council. First, therefore, the Council is only advisory and, secondly, it will not be entitled to consider money Bills, which, alas, could well be discriminatory. We are bound, therefore, to express some concern.
Things may not work out as I have suggested—I hope not—but it is our duty to consider whether the safeguards are adequate. I remember very well the debates that took place when the Bill authorising the creation of the Central African Federation was discussed in the House. Lord Chandos, as he now is, who was then Colonial Secretary, showed irritation at the way in which hon. Members on this side doubted the wisdom of the Government in forcing that Federation through against the wishes of the African people and expressed fears about the future.
I do not know what he was thinking, but at one time Lord Chandos appeared to me to be saying to himself, "How stupid these people are in not accepting the word of the Government."As it has proved, however, many of the doubts which we then expressed were well founded and many of our fears were justified. It is with that recollection of past experience, as well as concern for the future of Southern Rhodesia, that I feel unable to support the Bill.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedfordshire): I am glad of the chance to say a few brief words in this debate, first because I have had the good fortune to spend some weeks during the Recess in the Federation and in Southern Rhodesia, and secondly, because I was out there as a child—indeed, I was nearly born a Southern Rhodesian—and my father was a Member of Parliament for Lomagundi in Southern Rhodesia.

So that I have been brought up to some extent in a Rhodesian atmosphere and have taken a great interest in the progress of the country.
I do not accuse the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) of being legalistic, but I think that he spoke of the letter of the Constitution rather than of the siprit. I wish briefly to deal with the spirit of it. I am no constitutional lawyer, but in my short time out there recently I got some feeling of the spirit that is behind non-racialism.
The success of the Constitution clearly depends on race relations, which, to my mind, means understanding first and foremost. To take up two points made very ably by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), there are clear proofs of the good will and of the efforts that are being made by the United Federal Party, in particular, and by the Europeans in Southern Rhodesia—the white Southern Rhodesians—to make non-racialism a living thing.
The two real achievements in this line recently have been, first, the referendum which was won after a considerable electoral struggle. I spoke recently to a number of people who are involved out there. A good many of them were bitterly disappointed at the reception their victory, as they believed it to be, was given in this country. There was a certain amount of sneering at the result as being less than it might have been. The right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) mentioned figures of two to one, and this is true. Nevertheless, it was a great effort and a great beginning, and it was for them a victory, and we on our side should acknowledge their achievement.
The second real achievement is the United Federal Party Congress, which took place only a few weeks ago. at which they took this, for them, tremendous step forward of resolving almost unanimously and with a one-third African representation at the Congress that if they are returned at the next election, they will do away with all forms of segregation.
That is what they must do, and they realise it. If, however, we wish to help, what we need to do is to understand the difficulties which those who fee! in this way are up against in southern


Rhodesia. It is only fair to reflect that the pioneer column Chat first arrived came up from South Africa, from the Rand, that Southern Rhodesia has always looked to South Africa and that one-third of the European population there are of Afrikaner extraction, and there is therefore, naturally enough, a pull in that direction.
It takes long for people who are accustomed to attitudes which everyone in this House condemns—'the racialist attitudes in South Africa—to alter their minds. A considerable effort has to be put in to bring this about. This has been a tradition in Southern Rhodesia and until comparatively recently it has changed slowly. In recent years, however, the change has accelerated. Southern Rhodesians have completely altered their South African ideas about racialism and, this is something which we should recognise in the results of the U.F.P. Congress.
I should like to say a word about the attitude of mind also of the Africans, because this debate turns to some extent on speed—the speed of constitutional advance.
We should perhaps spend a little more time than we do in trying to understand what precisely is the attitude of mind of the African. It is not easy to interpret. I had the opportunity of talking to a number of Africans on this subject, and Europeans as well, who have made a close study of it. I hope that my African friends will not condemn me for making this little psychological exercise. It is very relevant.
For three hundred centuries the African in Central Africa has slumbered in the folds of animism and spiritism. His physical lot most certainly was a miserable one and has improved vastly since the arrival of the European. But he had standards. They were perfectly clear. He had one great standby and this was what one might describe as a compulsory conformism in the tribe which served to condemn ambition and penalise personal success as an evil thing. This was a great protection to him. Since the arrival of the Europeans, there has been imposed on this a thrusting belief in ambition, couched in varying degrees and versions of Christianity. This is a tremendous psychological change and something very difficult for him to

reconcile—only seventy years since we arrived and 300 centuries before.
Surely if we are to help him we must try to understand what he must be going through in trying to readjust and accept in its entirety the Western ethic which is completely opposed to what he believed before. The contradiction which this imposes on him may well cause— and this is entirely understandable—the African to put ambition before Christianity and politics before education.
It is a fact today—and this I believe to be true, for I was told it on very good authority by a number of people—that in his bewilderment, and many of the ordinary Africans in Southern Rhodesia are bewildered at this moment, he is turning back to the age-old spiritism he held to before.
I am putting this before the House in order to stress the need for understanding between African and European. This is another vital reason for it.
I spoke to a number of people, European and African, recently on the varying degrees and interpretations of non-racialism that are debated. I had a tremendously strong impression of the enthusiasm that there is behind this movement on both sides. Perhaps it is still a tender plant. Certainly it is still in its early days, but there is no question about the genuine feeling among those who believe in it and who are determined to build a non-racial State.
Perhaps it is a happy thing that this concept should come to be along the Zambezi River, along what might become, if things went wrong, the black-white frontier in Africa. I have a horrible spectre in my mind of what could result from the crystallisation of that position, and the only way to avoid it is through the success of non-racialism.
This Constitution represents an advance. Do not let us make it more difficult in this House, in this debate or in the country as a whole by heaping criticism upon it. Let us rather try to understand the difficulties that still exist and thus help those who very genuinely believe in it and believe that they can build a future for Southern Rhodesia as fine as that for any other country in Africa.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: The House will have listened with very great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings). We on this side of the House certainly are not opposed to the basic ideas which he has expressed of wishing for a speeding up of the creation of a non-racial State. What is troubling us is that the pace of advancement is so slow, and has been so slow, that the prospects of non-racialism coming into existence are being nipped in the bud.
What has led us to oppose the present Measure is that we feel that so little recognition is given in the proposed measures to the insurgent demand of Africans for advancement both social and political that they are likely to and in danger of rejecting these proposals wholeheartedly because they do not go anywhere nearly far enough. We hope that the Africans will give this Measure a trial run, if I may put it in that way, but we recognise that the proposals themselves that we are considering are based, despite some advancement, on a formula which leaves effective power and privilege still in the hands of Europeans. It is because these measures do that that we are opposing the Bill tonight.
There has been some criticism of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) for the excessive legalism of his speech. I confess that I find that a strange criticism, because, after all, this is a very important occasion for the House of Commons, for the people of this country, and for the people of Southern Rhodesia. For we are, by these measures, to abdicate our power of control over what goes on in Southern Rhodesia.
This Bill introduces a curious constitutional hybrid. If these measures take effect Southern Rhodesia will be a Colony which will be more than a Colony, but something less than an independent sovereign State. We, the British people, the British Government, will still be answerable internationally for what goes on in Southern Rhodesia;we shall be called to account before, for instance, the bar of the United Nations if things take a course in Southern Rhodesia which, for example, may do

violence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
We shall remain answerable before the bar of world opinion for what goes on in Southern Rhodesia after these measures are introduced, if they are to be introduced. Therefore, it is a vital duty for us to see that the Government who are to have this power, which may well result in our being placed in the international pillory, are likely, by reason of their composition, to be nondiscriminatory and fair, and we have a duty to see that the basic rights of the African people are safeguarded before we say goodbye to powers which exist, which could have been exercised in the past, and whose very existence did, we think, have a restraining effect.
In connection with the international implications of the proposed measures, there are one or two matters about which I should like to ask for information from the Minister. Paragraph 36 (1) of the Detailed Provisions deals with two classes of laws in respect of which there will still remain in the United Kingdom a power of disallowance. The first is this. There will be power of disallowance where the Act passed is
inconsistent with any international obligations imposed on the Queen in relation to Southern Rhodesia".
Does that mean that there will be power of disallowance where any Southern Rhodesian Act which may be passed may be inconsistent not only with present international obligations resting upon Her Majesty's Government, but any future international obligations which the Government may accept and undertake?
Suppose, for instance, that the Government in this country entered into an international convention and ratified such convention to bring into force and give effect to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There are many of us who have been pressing for this kind of gesture to be made by this Government. Suppose we became a party to such a convention as that. Can we bind Southern Rhodesia by such a measure as that?
Again, this is not a matter merely of theoretical importance. It is a matter of practical moment at present because of the obligations of the British Government under the Charter of the United


Nations. Article 25 of the Charter states that
the members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out a decision of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.
There is a duty under the Charter to lend military aid to carry out decisions of the Security Council.
It may well be—I am not sure that such a resolution does not already exist —that the Security Council might, for instance, resolve that steps should be taken to stop facilities for foreign mercenaries entering Katanga. Does the passing of this proposed legislation mean that the British Government's commitment to such obligations would extend to Southern Rhodesia, or could Southern Rhodesia simply ignore them and act as she thought fit? If there were disregard of such an international obligation of that kind entered into by the British Government, what powers would remain in the British Government to take steps to carry out their international obligations?
Quite apart from that matter, which is, I think, of some political importance to this country, I should like to echo the serious criticisms which have been made by my right hon. and learned Friend about the human rights provision of this Constitution. I confess that one of the feelings which I have had in the debates which we have had on the Southern Rhodesian Constitution has been a feeling of futility, because although the House of Commons is parting with very important powers we have not the least power to amend any details of the proposed Constitution, and, as my right hon. and learned Friend has said, we are not sure even now what the precise and detailed provisions of the Constitution will be.
So we are going through a somewhat hallow Parliamentary drill. We are uttering words, and, alas, words of criticism, which have been expressed on this side of the House, which, as yet, have resulted in no practical steps by way of remedy of anything which is proposed. However, as I understand from the speech of the Joint Under-Secretary of State, there is still room for some adjustment, some alteration, in the Constitution—he has placed it in terms of detail, but it may well be that a detailed amendment may make all the difference

—so that one is encouraged to continue these criticisms in the hope that at the eleventh hour there may be a strengthening of these human rights clauses, so that we may feel sure that we are receiving an adequate quid pro quofor the surrender of the powers of the British House of Commons.

Mr. Braine: I would not wish the hon. and learned Gentleman to misunderstand what I said. I went out of my way to say that the Declaration of Rights in regard to the new Constitution will be promulgated in its entirety. He will know that for purposes of legal precision a few drafting amendments might be necessary, but I assure him—I would like to remove all doubt from his mind—that the Declaration of Rights will be incorporated in the new Constitution in its entirety. The House is, therefore, well aware of what it is discussing. It has had the White Paper before it.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: I understand that the broad lines and the major aspects of the declaration will be embodied in the proposed Southern Rhodesian legislation—

Mr. Braine: It will be embodied in the Order in Council.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: It will be embodied in the Order in Council, but whether there will be consultation in the drafting of the terms of the Order in Council between the Government and the Southern Rhodesian Government's representatives I do not know. I would hope there would be, and I would hope that, when the question of drafting amendments is considered, the serious criticisms made by my right hon. and learned Friend will be considered, because, as he pointed out, the provision in paragraph 11 (4) of the Declaration of Rights really drives a coach and four throughout all the safeguarding words of paragraph 11 (1):
No written law shall contain any discriminatory provision.

Mr. S. Silverman: Can my hon. and learned Friend enlighten me on one point, which I do not understand? I am looking at the paragraph which, on first reading, appears to me to mean that the Order in Council which contains the provisions that have been discussed in the last few minutes of my hon. and


learned Friend's speech can be subsequently changed by another Order in Council, which, although it has to be placed before the House of Commons, cannot in any way be dealt with by the House. Is that right or wrong?

Mr. Elwyn Jones: I think that is what was indicated by the Under Secretary when he opened the debate and I fear that that is the position. Perhaps my hon. Friend, with his customary genius for probing, will return to the matter when the Secretary of State concludes the debate.

Mr. Silverman: It will be too late. then.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: One never knows. At any rate, let us see whether something can be done between now and the embodying of the Declaration in the Order in Council.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport said, the provisions of this Declaration contain reservations which I confess I have not been able to find paralleled in either the Nigerian Declaration of Human Rights or the Sierra Leone Declaration of Human Rights. When we are criticised for legalism in this matter, these are legal rights which we are going to tell the Africans are an adequate safeguard for them and we shall be guilty of humbug if we put a mass of words in a Declaration which have no effective results at all.
To return to Section 11, Subsection (1) says:
No written law shall contain any discriminatory provision.
But subsection (4) adds that that subsection
shall not apply to any law to the extent that it relates to any of the following matters, that is to say ….
to the extent that it makes provision whereby persons of a particular description are subjected to any condition, restriction or disability which … having regard to such of the following matters as are relevant in the circumstances of the case … is reasonably justifiable either in the interests of Southern Rhodesia as a whole …
One of the grounds which apparently justify the continuance or introduction of restrictions or disabilities, the

"matters that are deemed to be relevant", are

(a)"the nature of the … restriction …."
(b)"any special circumstances appertaining to persons of that or any other description;"
(c)"the stage of social or economic development for the time being reached by the various descriptions of persons affected …"
(d)"the state for the time being of the economy of Southern Rhodesia".
All this seems to say that if a section of the Southern Rhodesia population have reached a lower stage of social or economic development than others it would be proper to exercise against them restrictions or disabilities. I cannot imagine anything giving a clearer scope for discrimination than that.
However, there is a proviso, and it may be that the Minister can make more out of it than I can. I confess that it gives me no reassurance. It is in the terms:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply to the extent that the law in question results in the laws with respect to the matter in question affording greater difference of treatment of different descriptions of persons than immediately before the date of the making of the law in question.
As I understand it, it simply means that one cannot discriminate more than one is discriminating already, which does not seem to me an effective measure of antidiscrimination. I hope that we shall have much greater reassurance about that.
I confess that I find far more reassuring the kind of words one finds in other Constitutions, like that of Ceylon, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport has already referred, namely, that these Declarations of Rights should quite plainly forbid discriminatory legislation which should be defined as legislation which has the result of discriminating against the different races in the population. What troubles me is that, as far as I can judge the matter, not only does this Declaration of Rights not deal with the Measures on the Southern Rhodesian Statute Book at the moment, which we on this side of the House regard as repressive, indeed positively Draconian as I said earlier, and which were introduced only in the course of 1960, but that if this Declaration of Rights had been in existence then I doubt whether those Draconian Measures would have been caught by its provisions.
Although much has been said about the improved outlook in Southern Rhodesia, which we readily recognise, nevertheless it was in 1960 that there were passed two Measures, the Vagrancy Act, on the one hand, and the Law and Order (Maintenance) Act on the other, which seemed to us on this side of the House to be a most serious defiance of what ought to be embodied in any Charter of Human Rights. For instance, the Vagrancy Act defines a vagrant in Section 2 as:
any person who is unable to show that he is living by honest means and has a settled way of honest living.
I resist the temptation of indicating what difficulties some hon. Members might confront under that definition.

Mr. Charles Pannell: That applies only to Southern Rhodesia, not here.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: One finds a reference similarly to vagrants in the Declaration of Rights itself, which declares in Section 2 (2):
No law shall authorise any person to be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases, that is to say … if he is, or is reasonably suspected to be … addicted to … alcohol, or a vagrant …
This is a confusing provision in so far as some apparently honest citizens normally regarded as worthy of freedom might be affected.
The Vagrancy Act, having defined a vagrant in that broad way, goes on, in Section 3, to say:
A police officer may arrest without warrant any person who appears to be a vagrant and shall take such person before a magistrate within forty-eight hours of his arrest.
That person can be held for three years and sent out to work in the fields or mines. I doubt whether a Declaration of Rights would hit that Section;I fear that it would not.
Even more disturbing is the notorious Law and Order (Maintenance) Act, which led the Chief Justice of Southern Rhodesia to resign. Not long ago, in the Library, I read with astonishment Section 51 of that Act. I found it difficult to believe when I read it. It states:
Whenever any person is convicted by a court of an offence for which a minimum sentence is prescribed by this Act and such sentence is imposed by that court, the court shall submit a report on the proceedings in

the case to the Minister for transmission to the Governor.
That, of course, is an indication of the freedom and independence of the bench;the bench is required to explain why it gave the minimum sentence—to show cause;a most remarkable piece of legislation.
When one reads that Act and sees the fierce penalties passed for offences defined in the most broad, most dangerously broad terms, and one sees that a declaration of human rights which makes it improbable either that such legislation will be reviewed or, what is more serious, improbable that it will be interfered with, it is not surprising that we feel anxiety. It is true that, theoretically, the Constitutional Council can review legislation already in existence, but the Council's powers are purely advisory;it has no veto power at all.
I make no apology for venturing some lawyers' observations on this matter. We have a duty, as a House of Commons, not to part with reserved powers which were retained for this House for the very reason that in this territory of Southern Rhodesia there was this disparity in position and power between the European and the non-European. I hope that even at this late hour the Government may, by whatever means may still be open to them, reopen this matter, have a second thought upon it, and really give the Africans some hope for faith in the future. That, I fear, is what they lack at the moment.
If, for instance, there could be some indication that the Africans would have good cause to hope for further constitutional advancement it would be a help, but there have been quotations from one of the leaders of the Government party which certainly give one no confidence that there is such a hope. Is this to be a once-for-all constitutional change? Is there really, in practice, reason to hope that this will be the beginning of the road to a real representative democracy in Southern Rhodesia? This is the critical question.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Running through the speeches of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) and the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice)—


and, in some respects, through the speech of the hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones)—has been an impression that the historical development of this territory has been comparable to that of other territories in Africa. Indeed, the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West went so far as to ask why this sort of thing should happen here when something else has happened in Nyasaland. I hope that I am not misinterpreting what he said. If I am, I will gladly give way to him.

Mr. Wade: I said that the general principle of trusteeship must surely apply to Southern Rhodesia as well as to Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, and that the Africans found it very difficult to understand why a distinction should be made in the treatment of Africans in the Northern Territories and in Southern Rhodesia.

Mr. Gower: I accept that as another point the hon. Gentleman made, but his first case was that the development of this territory from its earliest inception as a settled community has been comparable to the development of other territories. That has not been the case. We may regret that Rhodesia was originally developed by a company rather than settled as a Colony, but it is a fact. We may regret the fact, or may wish that it were otherwise, that Southern Rhodesia in 1923 had a constitution which rapidly made it a sort of self-governing Colony. We may not be pleased about that, but it is a fact that we must recognise. I would have thought that the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West and also—and I say this with diffidence—the right hon. and learned Member for Newport were stretching the comparison very far indeed.
The other point made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West was that in Southern Rhodesia we are in the same position, or in a similar position, as trustees in these other territories. Of course we would be if we enjoyed the same power in Southern Rhodesia. But the fact is that, since 1923, most of the powers of trustees have been carried out in Southern Rhodesia not by us but by the Government of Southern Rhodesia.
Then we come to the legal position, which has been pressed and rightly examined by successive speakers from the benches opposite. The last three who spoke from there are lawyers. They have rightly looked at the legal position. That position, if one examines the Act of 1923, would establish greater control here than is the fact. But in our law— and I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South will accept this—both in the relationship of constituent territories in the Commonwealth and internally in this country, the conventions of the Constitution are sometimes as important as statutory law. In the light of these conventions it is inconceivable—and I believe that that was the word used by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport—that we should, in practice, control these matters in Southern Rhodesia today if we made no change.
The alternative to the Bill is the old position — the position Which has obtained for so many years, under which this territory has been virtually and for every practical purpose a self-governing Colony. It is not a true alternative, as has been represented. I say with respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the alternative to the Government's proposals, or to better proposals, cannot be obtained from the old position. A very serious position would ensue if the House accepted the Amendment. The future of the Africans in the territory would be worsened. We should have virtually no say and there would be virtually no safeguards.
Whatever the inadequacies we may discover or descry in these proposals, the Opposition's alternative would be far weaker, because we should be left with the position where we were dealing with a territory over which we had no control at all except through a word in an old statute which has not been practised for two generations.

Mr. Richard Marsh: The hon. Member's reasoning on this point is rather strange. Is he suggesting that if one does not use reserve powers for a period of time it becomes a constitutional convention that reserve powers no longer exist?

Mr. Gower: Yes. I am afraid that is the case.

Hon. Members: Nonsense.

Mr. Gower: It is not nonsense. That is how the law of nations develops. It may be regrettable, but that is how so many of our Dominions gradually acquired enlarged powers. They did so not by the passing of Acts in this House but by practice over many years.

Mr. S. Silverman: If the hon. Member's doctrine were true, we would be destroying the constitution of this House, which has a great many reserve powers. The House has exercised them, and ought to exercise them, only on the rarest occasions. Is the hon. Member saying that if we do not exercise these powers for long enough we lose them?

Mr. Gower: We are dealing with other countries. For example, in theory, just before the passing of the Statute of Westminster, we could have controlled the actions of the Canadian or Australian Governments.

Mr. Silverman: I am talking not about them but about us.

Mr. Gower: I am talking about us, and this is the matter at issue. In theory, immediately prior to the passing of the Statute of Westminster we could have controlled the actions of the Australian, New Zealand or Canadian Government, but in practice that would have been not merely inconceivable but impracticable.

Mr. Silverman: We are not talking about what is inconceivable or impracticable but a quite different proposition which the hon. Member advances, which is that if there are reserve powers which it has been impracticable to exercise, or which have not been exercised for long enough, they are lost. If that were true, then, in the instance of Canada, which the hon. Member himself gave, there would never have been any need to pass the Statute of Westminster, for the reserve powers would have disappeared.

Mr. Gower: In practice, there was no need for the Statute of Westminster.

Mr. Silverman: Then why pass it?

Mr. Gower: It merely put into formal shape what was a fact, and the hon.

Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is too good a lawyer not to know that it was a fact. I would have assumed that his knowledge of the law was sufficient for him to comprehend this fairly straightforward proposition. If we have a power which we can exercise over another territory and, for various reasons, we do not exercise it for a couple of generations, it is my thesis that we have ourselves created a convention by which that territory is that much more self-governing. In effect, the territory of Southern Rhodesia has been self-governing ever since 1923.
By the Government's proposals we are now to have a limitation of the powers of the Southern Rhodesian Government, a limitation which did not exist or has not existed for many years. It is a limitation in whose creation the Southern Rhodesia Government is voluntarily cooperating. Alongside that, we have the signs of liberalisation in Southern Rhodesia in the last twelve months, and there are many hopeful signs about this Territory.
While I understand the apprehension of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West about the future of Africans in Southern Rhodesia, it is certainly not the worst part of Africa for an African to live in today. Nor am I referring to Colonies. I am referring to some territories which have become wholly-independent. In Southern Rhodesia the African has a good hope of enlarged opportunity, not only constitutionally but in an improving standard of life to go with it and all that we understand by an ordered society and the general prevalence of what we understand by the rule of law.
If all that is taken alongside the practice which has obtained for many years, then it would be a serious matter if the Opposition Amendment were accepted, for it would place the African in a position far worse than that which he would have if the Bill were passed. For that reason, I hope that the House will reject the Amendment.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. Jack Jones: So far the debate has been primarily conducted by men of legal ability, with the usual arguments about the validity of the Bill


and its legal effects. I want to consider it from the humanitarian point of view, speaking as a Socialist and trade unionist and wanting for the African exactly the same privileges as those which I have aspired to obtain for myself. The question is how soon the African can have what we have in this country, and whether the timing is right.
This is a vast problem. On the one hand, there are those who advocate complete self-determination by the Africans for Africa, and, on the other, those who argue that the time is not yet ripe for that. There is a case to be made on both counts. There is the African who says, "Get out Europeans. Go back home", but if the European came home and took out of Africa the medical and technical skill and the "know-how" which is at present available in that vast country, the Africans would be very much worse off than if the Europeans stayed there.
Today there have been celebrations marking the granting of the freedom of self-determination to Tanganyika. When I have discussed the problem of the Rhodesias with some of my colleagues, they have said that we gave India freedom, and we all know what happened immediately after that. There was a blood-letting which, please God, will not happen in the Rhodesias.
This is a vast country, with a potential wealth unknown to man. I have been privileged to go there as an ordinary fellow who knows something about iron ore and things of that kind. If there is one part of the world where a huge part of the natural potential is waiting to be exploited, or should I say used properly, it is this part of Africa. I say that the potential is waiting to be used properly, because at the moment the wealth of the country is being exploited. There are vast reserves of iron and copper ore which could be used in the interests of both Europeans and Africans.
This Bill provides for a Constitution which gives the Africans fifteen seats in the Legislature. If I were an African discussing this matter, I would ask myself what I ought to do. Ought I to agree to a Bill which enables me and my fellow-Africans to elect to the Legislature fifteen members who could in time prove that they were fitted to carry out

the job of good government and prove that they were worthy of the support both of Europeans and of Africans to carry out Government procedure as it should be carried out?
Then there is the diehard European, and there are plenty of them living in affluent circumstances in Rhodesia. They live in the Copper Belt and say to themselves, "We have had a good time out of this. The Africans have been working like stink for low wages and we ought to try to keep the status quoand keep this country working under the present system which gives us the opportunity of exploiting and dominating the Africans as we have been doing for many years."
There are the two points of view. There are the Africans who overnight want what it has taken us centuries to get—and we are still quarrelling about the fact that we have not got where we want to be—and there are the extremist Africans who go around Nyasaland in particular making all sorts of fantastic promises to get people to go to the polls and vote them into power. Extraordinary promises have been made in that part of Africa.

Mr. Marsh: And in England.

Mr. Jones: Yes.

Mr. C. Pannell: That is not peculiar to Africa. Hon. Gentlemen opposite also go round making extraordinary promises. One does not need a coloured skin to be taken in by promises.

Mr. Jones: I agree that this stats of affairs is not peculiar to Africans. Since the last Budget, and during the last fortnight, we have had evidence of the effects of exploitation and of the adroit, skilful way in which people use power. I do not need my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) to tell me about that. I have been watching the position since I left school, and that was a long time ago, but we are tonight discussing the Constitution of Southern Rhodesia.
How can the Government bring in a Bill which will not appease but satisfy both Europeans and Africans so that they will work together and come to an amicable arrangement to achieve what they both want? That is the task of the Government, and it is a big one.
The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) spoke about the improvement in multi-racial relationships. I agree that there has been an improvement in the last twelve months, but what puzzles me is why this improvement did not begin twenty or thirty years ago. It is all very well starting to improve relations once the pressure is put on, but why have they waited until the average African has said to himself, "The more pressure we put on, the quicker the Government will move"? The Government are saying, in return, "We are giving you what we believe is enough for you for the time being."
The question is whether this is to be regarded as the last word in respect of the Africans' opportunity for self-determination. Hon. Members opposite have said that Sir Edgar Whitehead has said that this is it. There is nothing that any Whitehead or redhead, or even fathead, in this or any other country has a right to say in this respect. Fortunately, Governments have the habit of constantly changing throughout the world, and the world itself is always changing. Tanganyika, today, is an example.
The Joint Under-Secretary will have an opportunity of telling me whether I am correct in this. I hope that he will tell us that this is merely a first stage and that there is a definite intention to bring about what is wanted by everybody who believes in democracy.

Mr. Marsh: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the important point in this argument is whether or not this House is prepared to relinquish its reserved powers despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of the people concerned, far from wanting independence, do not want to be cut off from us?

Mr. Jones: That is the issue before us. Does anybody out there want the Government to take away the power they have to see that the right thing is done eventually? A great onus is placed on the people out there. I can only look at the problem as I see it. Some people take the view that it should be a case of one man, one vote, and that everybody is entitled to a vote. Others may argue that some people, very unfortunately, are not in a position to be able to understand the use of a vote.
I have come across many educated Africans. There are thousands of highly educated and responsible African citizens in Africa, but there are tens of thousands of Africans who have not yet learned to use writing paper. At long last they are being given limited opportunities to go to school. Schools have generally been provided by companies which have done very well oat of Africa, particularly in the Copper Belt. But there are still tens of thousands of Africans living in the bush who have not yet been taught the use of toilet paper, never mind a ballot paper. There are poor, unfortunate people who have never had any opportunities, and who have a very primitive type of education. They have their own way of living, which at least brings about results. They live for themselves, as best they can.
I could say a lot about the multi-racial question. Progress is being made. We have African trade unions as well as white trade unions. But this is a lot of nonsense. Why should not every person who wishes to discuss with his employer the right pay for the right job be allowed to belong to one and the same union? The one place where the multi-racial question has been settled is on the Rhodesian railways. Sir Roy Welensky, himself an ex-railwayman, has encouraged the railway union to do a good job.
I do not want to go into details, but it is clear that hotels are also becoming multi-racial, at long last. What amazes me—and it would amuse me if the context were not so serious—is that if we visit one of the finest universities in the world we can see our coloured brothers and sisters sitting with their white colleagues eating their meals, sleeping in the same dormitories and being taught in the same class-rooms, but not being allowed to go to the local cinema with them. That is a lot of humbug which should have been chucked into the dustbin years and years ago. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House and the world, and Africa in particular, that this Bill is designed as a first step on the road to opportunity for those who want to bring about as soon as possible what Tanganyika has been given today.

Mr. Braine: Before the hon. Member resumes his seat, may I say that it is quite astonishing to consider the extent to which some hon. Members have not bothered to study the White Papers. There is no limit to the rolls. In fact, the very kind of economic and educational advance about which the hon. Gentleman has been speaking will enable an increasing number of Africans to go on to the rolls in the future. I hope that this will remove some of the misconceptions in the mind of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Jones: We want to be absolutely certain that increasing numbers of Africans will, as soon as possible, obtain the right to govern their own country in their own way, which will, I hope, be as satisfactory as the way in which this country will be governed if we had a Socialist Government.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: The real argument in this debate has been about safeguards for the future of the African people in Southern Rhodesia, the argument being advanced by those who believe that the existing reserved powers which have never been used since 1923 are of more value than a new Constitution which introduces a Constitutional Council and a Declaration of Rights.
I am glad that the hon Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) got away from these rather legalistic arguments to discuss the economic and social developments in the country, because that is what really matters. I think that if the right spirit is there the legal difficulties can be sorted out. I believe that the spirit is there and, with other hon. Members, I was much encouraged by the results of the referendum.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) pointed to the very rapid development in race relations and the advance of the African peoples which has occurred during the last few years in Southern Rhodesia. They have been accelerated during the last few months. The hon. Member for Rotherham referred to cinemas. I understand that now there is a law on the stocks, if I may use that expression, which will abolish any form

of racial discrimination in cinemas, restaurants, or anywhere else, thus following the example of Northern Rhodesia. That shows that the Government of Southern Rhodesia have the right spirit. It also shows that they have the support of the majority of Europeans in that country. The real reason why this was not done earlier is that Sir Edgar Whitehead and the United Federal Party are like us politicians and depend on the votes of the electorate.

Mr. Marsh: Would the hon. Gentleman feel as happy about the future of the Africans if he knew there was a possibility of the success of the Dominion Party under Mr. Harper?

Mr. Wall: Quite honestly, I should not. But there is no chance of that now. The Constitution makes every candidate responsible both to the black and to the white electorate on both rolls. I should think that that would effectively rule out the success of many candidates of the Dominion Party. If the feelings which have been expressed —and which I share with the hon. Member to some degree—about the Dominion Party are true I do not think that its candidates will get many African votes, which would weigh strongly against them wherever they stand.
I wish to refer to a paper which I am sure a number of hon. Members have received from the N.D.P. There contains a resolution which, I understand, was passed at the annual conference of the National Democratic Party which took place on the 19th to the 22nd of October. The delegates at that conference unanimously passed a resolution condemning taking part in the forthcoming election under the new Constitution. They further resolved to fight relentlessly to achieve democracy and majority rule for the people of Southern Rhodesia.
I think that we can understand their aspirations and their desire for majority rule and one man, one vote. But I hope that the views expressed in this paper will not be put into effect by the more responsible leaders in the N.D.P. Surely the right way is to fight for what they consider are their rights, by registering first and then by exercising their vote. They may feel that 15 seats as against 50 seats for the Europeans is a poor


percentage. But it is a good start, and Sir Edgar Whitehead has gone on record as saying that in his view Africans may well have a majority in that Parliament in about fifteen years' time.
It was not long ago that we were discussing the new Constitution for Kenya— the Lancaster House Conference of 1960 —and it was then expected that Kenya would gain its independence in eight or more years' time. Now many of us are talking about that country becoming independent in the next year or two. Accordingly, when it is being said that it will take fifteen years for Southern Rhodesia to have an African majority, it may turn out to be considerably less.
So I feel that the African people—if they hold the views of the N.D.P., and many of them do—will exercise their constitutional rights in a reasonable way and through the ballot box. As soon as this Constitution has been put into effect the weight of the African vote will have great effect in many constituencies in Southern Rhodesia In other words, I hope that they will fight with constitutional methods.
I hope, also, that they will hear about the debate we had on the independence of Tanganyika and will draw a lesson from that. Tanganyika has achieved independence faster than most of us had thought possible. This was because of good leadership, good race relations and a sensible economic policy. I hope that Tanganyika will become the leader of a new and greater Federation with the whole of East Africa which might, at a later date, be extended to Central Africa as well.
I hope that when this new Constitution is put into effect Sir Edgar and his Government will give consideration to repealing some of the legislation which has been referred to today. It was introduced in an emergency and I believe that the Government of a country have the right to introduce the legislation they consider necessary in an emergency. But race relations are said to be much improved and, if this is true, there is good case for looking at this legislation carefully in the hope that it will be possible to modify or withdraw it.
I hope that Mr. Nyandoro and Mr. Robert Chickerema—a personal friend of mine—who have been in detention for

over two years without trial, will be liberated in the near future and will be able to play their democratic parts in building up a non-racial society in Southern Rhodesia.
Hon. Members should recognise that whatever criticisms we make of Southern Rhodesia and its Government we must all agree that that Government is proceeding in exactly the opposite direction to the Government of the Republic of South Africa. Anyone who goes to Southern Rhodesia from Britain, and who is not used to multi-racial societies, may feel bothered about some of the matters we have been discussing. But anyone who is routed to Southern Rhodesia from the North, that is, via the Cape, will immediately sense the difference in the atmosphere the moment he crosses that frontier.
Southern Rhodesia is the only country where we can hope for a truly non-racial society. It is highly developed and industrialised, with a great future, and l am sure that, just as we all wished Tanganyika god-speed when we passed the Second Reading of the Tanganyika Independence Bill, so we wish Southern Rhodesia and all races in that country god-speed in what virtually amounts to independence.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) very naturally referred to Tanganyika. We have all had that country very much in mind today, since we discussed Tanganyika earlier. I hope that all hon. Members agree that when we make constitutional changes—and it lies in our power still to make them in Africa—it is only prudent to derive what lessons we can from what has happened elsewhere in Africa.
As we look around Africa and consider how far African nations have been able to advance towards self-Government while maintaining political stability and avoiding any of the infringements of constitutional propriety and the rest of it, we find that many of them have done so reasonably well and that there has been reasonable success. Countries like Senegal, Tunisia, Sierra Leone, Nigeria—and, of course Tanganyika, whose independence we welcomed


this afternoon—are all outstanding examples of how it is possible for African countries to advance, despite the low level of economic development which exists in certain parts. These nations have been able to establish stable government, toleration among the races and, as a result, a concentration upon economic development. They are going ahead well, and we are pleased when we go there and see what they are doing, or read about their activities. Yet elsewhere in Africa, in Katanga, Algeria and the Rhodesias, we find tension and strife.
What lesson can we derive from these examples? Surely the lesson is that where the minorities seek to maintain special privileges created in a past era their future is endangered by mounting hostility coming from emergent Africa. Where they have not sought to maintain special privileges by special constitutional safeguards and instruments, where they have recognised that the best safeguard of all is the good will of the majority, we find this comparatively peaceful movement forward to self-government and economic development. Surely this is the lesson of contemporary Africa, that the non-racial approach and the common roll are the best constitutional instruments for successful independence.
In Southern Rhodesia we are being asked to endorse a form of constitution which stops timidly short of the non-racial approach, which savours still of an expression which I thought it was a little significant that the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) should use, the multi-racial approach. I am referring to the non-racial approach. In its time multi-racialism was, no doubt, a reasonable enough conception, the idea of giving a balance, a parity between two races, or a balance between three races in certain circumstances;but, as time has gone on, all experience seems to me to have proved that that was a mistake, and the most successful countries in Africa today are those which have got away from it—a country like Tanganyika which has got Europeans, considerable numbers of Asians and Africans, where, having made no attempt for some years past at any multi-racial

balance but having agreed to go all in together, they now have a Government, as we know, under an African Prime Minister, which contains prominent European Ministers and very efficient Asian Ministers.
Tanganyika is going forward with unusually good prospects of success, provided that she can get reasonable economic aid from the richer countries. What has happened in Southern Rhodesia—let us face it—has caused so much dismay that it gravely imperils what we all want—peaceful co-operation by all the races in constitutional and economic development. I think it was most unfortunate that when this Constitution was put before the Southern Rhodesian Legislature on 21st June it was defended by Sir Edgar Whitehead in words which I feel, in spite of all that has happened since, one ought to read to the House.
I am quoting from the official journal of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland which is sent periodically to all hon. Members interested in these subjects.
The Prime Minister, Sir Edgar Whitehead, said that if the proposals were not endorsed at the coming referendum he was certain that that opportunity would never come again, not even in six months' time. Sir Edgar told members that the proposals were regarded overseas as ' major concessions' and as ' exceedingly conservative'.
Later, he said—I quote from the same document—that
he was perfectly satisfied that if the reserve Clauses in the present Constitution were allowed to remain for a further period of years, they would develop from being a nuisance into a menace.
and he spoke about the desirability of getting what he called negotiated independence.
In another of these publications, on 14th July, 1961, we read that Sir Roy Welensky, the Prime Minister of the Federation itself, told a radio audience on 30th June that
it was a plain fact that the new Constitution will make Southern Rhodesia virtually completely independent within the framework of the Federation, free to legislate as it wishes without reference to the British Government, and free from the possibility of legislation being imposed upon it by Britain.
The tone and the temper in which these constitutional changes were put before the Legislature of Southern


Rhodesia and before the general public of Southern Rhodesia and the Federation were such as to arouse suspicion in the minds of African people. They feared that this was to be permanent and that there would be no change of any kind to which they could reasonably look forward, and that they would henceforth be entirely in the hands of the Southern Rhodesia white settler Government without any protection from the United Kingdom. Their suspicions of the motives behind the Constitution began to grow. We know that in the earlier stages their misgivings were nothing like so strong. The way this was sold to the white electorate was, in my view, one of the precipitants of the present awkward and difficult situation in Southern Rhodesia.
After the constitutional proposals had been put forward in that way to the white electorate of Southern Rhodesia, the situation grew steadily worse. The referendum took place on 26th July. In the Newsletterpublished by Rhodesia House here in London, we read on 28th July that troops of the Federal Army and police moved into certain African townships and other areas throughout Southern Rhodesia on 19th July, a week before the Referendum. The excuse for this was that the National Democratic Party had announced that demonstrations would take place from the 23rd to the 26th July, of a type—this was said openly and publicly—which would be legally and politically acceptable in any democratic country. The National Democratic Party was met by the use of the Federal army and police and local armed forces. When the leaders of the National Democratic Party wished, during the referendum, to put their case to electors and to the people of Southern Rhodesia generally, they were told that they could hold no meetings of more than 12 persons. There was a ban on meetings in the reserves and that ban was maintained.
This was the atmosphere in which the Constitution was put to the two races in Southern Rhodesia. The result of the attitude of the Southern Rhodesian attitude of the Southern Rhodesia Government and the Federal Government was that the most pro-Federation Africans in the whole of Africa became as strongly anti-Federation as any, and they remain full of suspicion about the new Constitution.
We have been reminded—we welcome it—that since the Constitution was approved by the Legislature and by the referendum, speeches of a different sort have begun to be made and that improvements have been carried through the Legislature. We know, and we welcome, that the Land Apportionment Act has been amended. Although, in my opinion, it still could do with a good deal more amendment, the purchase area has been increased. We know also that the Immorality Act has been repealed. There has been the court decision that the swimming baths at Salisbury are open to all and should not be closed in a discriminatory manner. We know many other similar encouraging facts, some of which have been given by hon. Members in the debate, and I need not attempt to repeat them. To quote again from the Newsletter,we know that Sir Edgar Whitehead, when he opened the United Federal Party Congress in Salisbury on 5th October, said:
The maintenance of straightforward white supremacy was as dead as the dodo. It was essential that there should be no artificial barriers between the races. We must regard each other as Rhodesians and build up a greater prosperity.
I welcome these statements wholeheartedly. I only wish that this sort of thing had been said much earlier and that there had not been this absurd cultivation of the Dominion Party and this attempt to sell the Constitution to the white electorate of Southern Rhodesia as a permanent brake on African advancement and a permanent barrier to the removal of racial discrimination.
Despite whatever improvement there has been in the speeches of Southern Rhodesian leaders—and I welcome it— the fact remains that what the House of Commons is asked to do tonight is to approve the Constitution. We cannot get away from that fact. Whatever comfort we may draw from this or that improvement in what was certainly a very bad situation, we must address our minds tonight to the question—Is this a satisfactory Constitution? The House well knows already the defects of that Constitution.
I had it in mind to say something about those defects, but, in the interests of not taking up too much time, I can abandon that because my right hon.


and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) riddled the Constitution with criticism. Using his immense legal knowledge and great experience in constitutional matters in many parts of the world, he examined the Constitution in a way that no one else could have done, and no reasonable hearer could have been left in any doubt that this Constitution just will not do.
Since I had previously said something about this matter in an earlier debate, I particularly welcomed the thorough way in which my right hon. and learned Friend criticised not merely the safeguards but the Declaration of Rights itself. After the thorough and careful examination which we have conducted in two successive debates, I do not see how any fair-minded person can be left in doubt that the only sure guarantee for non-discrimination and successful African constitutional advance lies in the franchise. Everything depends on that.
The more we analyse the constitutional proposals, the more we come back to this. The recommendations of the Constitutional Council can be set aside by certificates of urgency or by outright repeal by the Legislature by a two-thirds majority at once or by a simple majority after six months. The only effective safeguard which Africans can have under this Declaration of Human Rights and these provisions for a Constitutional Council lies in a sufficient number of representatives in the House to block that kind of attack on the Constitution.
It was a remarkable thing, I thought, that the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey, whose speech immediately followed that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport, did not attempt to reply in any way to the criticisms of my right hon. and learned Friend. I feel sure that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman thought that he had a satisfactory legal argument to put against what my right hon. and learned Friend said he would have used it. All that the right hon. and learned Gentleman could do was to draw our attention to these welcome phrases, which I quoted earlier, coming from Sir Edgar Whitehead and others, these welcome improvements in social behaviour.
What the right hon. and learned Gentleman was asking us to do was to welcome a thoroughly had Constitution

because some people have made nice speeches and have begun to make appropriate social and racial gestures. This is simply not good enough. As a House of Commons, we cannot, and ought not to, accept a Constitution which we find to be full of defects simply because there appears to be somewhere a slight ray of hope on the horizon that the white majority in the Southern Rhodesian Parliament might be a little more wise than it appeared to be when the Constitution was put over.
Who can be sure that after the Constitution is approved by this House, there might not be a reversal to the previous attitude? That attitude lasted for a very long time. I say again that the only firm foundation for racial harmony can be acceptance by the majority of the people —the 2½million Africans of the country —of its justice and of its fair play. This is the hope for racial harmony and for continued existence and prosperity of white people and Asians as well as Africans in Southern Rhodesia. It is because we want this that we should like to see in the Constitution a far more emphatic guarantee of an adequate African representation here and now in the Legislature. If we had that, the rest of the Constitution might be accepted, because as time passed it could be improved. Without that, we have no guarantee whatever that it will be improved.
The Africans, therefore, cannot be expected to accept this new Constitution as satisfactory because they have no effective means of changing it. We cannot ask them, as the wind of change blows furiously down through Africa, to wait for the sweet by and by. Everywhere else they see rapid advance. They see everywhere else that it is possible for the races to live in harmony and that it is possible for white men and Africans to accept as their best safeguard the good will of the majority. They cannot understand—I do not blame them;I do not understand either—why this proved experiment cannot be tried in Southern Rhodesia.
After our last debate, I appealed for second thoughts. I asked the Government whether they would not think again about it, even though I knew that they were heavily committed already to the Southern Rhodesian leaders. I asked the


Prime Minister whether he would meet the African leaders, whom I and many of my hon. and right hon. Friends have seen. They themselves made an appeal and said, "Could we as a last resort, since we are still the protected subjects of Her Majesty, approach Her Majesty's principal Minister, as it were, as a second court of appeal?"
The Prime Minister said that he would consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The only result from that was that when they came to London, the African leaders, Mr. Nkomo and others, saw the Duke of Devonshire. They might have mistaken somebody with such a title for a tribal chief, but he was no more than the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. Of course, he did not carry the authority, prestige or power to do much about this.
I am not criticising the noble Duke for anything he did there—I am certain that he did his best and was, as usual, extremely courteous to his visitors—but they went away from that conversation with him with the impression that because Southern Rhodesia is becoming an increasingly industrialised country, because large numbers of United Kingdom firms have interests there and because of these interests of the United Kingdom and of powerful financial groups and companies in the Rhodesias generally, it was felt that Africans could not be trusted with the same extension of political power that they have in the less developed parts of Africa. That is the impression that they were left with.
They had, as I say, attempted to conduct their appeals to their own people in an atmosphere of armed force, prohibited from entering the reserves, unable to address satisfactory meetings of any size, with many of their leading members still lying in detention under detention orders. They were full of suspicion and fear and nobody met them. Nobody tried to explain to them, if it could be explained, why those fears were unjustified. Nobody gave them reassurance. They went away from this final interview—this last effort that they made by coming specially to this country—with the Joint Under-Secretary of State, the noble Duke, utterly despondent, feeling that there was no hope.
Now they have sent to us, as the hon. Member for Haltemprice has already quoted, this message which we all received today, in which they explain in detail why they still feel completely distrustful of the present constitutional proposals. They say at the end of this memorandum:
We know that it would have been easier for us to win the 15 seats apportioned to the 3 million Africans. Our Party would then be helping the Government of Whitehead to preserve white domination and, it is easy to imagine, the N.D.P. would then not be threatened with being banned, and its leaders would become ' respectable'. We reject this easy way and choose the way of strife that lies ahead. By rejecting the constitution we lay ourselves open to arrest, but this path will lead us to the desired end quicker than helping Whitehead to maintain white supremacy".
Frankly, I regret their decision not to contest the election. On this side of the House more than one of us has privately given them advice to contest the seats and use their position in Parliament as we use ours, as a platform from which to proclaim their views. They have decided otherwise. I am doubtful whether what I am saying now will be able to influence them any longer.
It has been a long, tragic story. From the beginning of the launching of this move there has been far too much effort to convince the extreme reactionery section of white opinion in Southern Rhodesia that the constitutional change was acceptable by selling it to them as independence as complete self-government for the white settlers and a ban on African advance.
There has been far too little effort to seek out and explain to African leaders. There has been a terrible failure to permit these moderately minded, sensible, well-educated men to get among their people and explain what it is they want to do. Some part of that failure, I think, rests upon the shoulders of Her Majesty's Government. Most of it rests elsewhere, I know, in Southern Rhodesia, but I wish there could have been a more careful and patient effort to get in touch with them, to keep in touch with them, and to explain to them what the situation was, and perhaps to bring in at the end one of the great Commonwealth Leaders who might have taken part in discussions of this kind with them and changed the situation. There would have had to be


a change on both sides if it were to succeed.
But it has not. It has failed to get full African co-operation. It is a tragedy. I hope it will not prove to be a long-term tragedy. I hope that when this Constitution is approved by this House —as, of course, we know it will be tonight, though we shall vote against it because we regard it as unsatisfactory— somehow or another light may emerge later on.
I would appeal to Africans to accept any olive branch which may still be offered to them and not to feel that this is the only way for them to achieve what they need, not to follow the road of Cyprus and other countries in the Commonwealth which have been able to achieve the independence of which they were thoroughly justified only by resorting to violence. I hope that will not happen. I hope that in some way, even when the Constitution is passed, the Africans may be assured that it can and will be amended, and soon.
But as it is, the Constitution is a bad Constitution. We cannot accept it, and we shall register our opinion of it in the Division Lobby tonight.

9.31 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I fully share the desire of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) to see all sections of the population in Southern Rhodesia playing their full part in its political and economic progress; and I regret, with him, that there should be a substantial section of African opinion which is at present minded not to play its part in the political development under the new Constitution.
But I will revert to that point a little later. There are a number of questions which were put to me and a number of criticisms which were raised, and I should like to deal with as many of them as I can in winding up this debate.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), as he always does, spoke with great clarity and precision, and he asked me—and the same question was put to me by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade)— an

important question about the interpretation which will be put upon the term "racial discrimination" in applying the new Constitution. He asked specifically whether racial discrimination in the letter of a law which may in future be passed meant that the law would apply specially prejudicial or favourable clauses and conditions to races named in the law.
I can give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the absolute assurance that the Constitution is not intended to have that effect. The intention is that discrimination shall be interpreted as the consequence of the law, the effect of the law. If the natural consequence of the law, even though it does not mention a particular race, is to prejudice or to favour a particular race as distinct from other races, then, even though it does not mention that race in the law, that will be regarded as discriminatory.
My advice is that the section of the Declaration of Rights as now worded has that legal interpretation, but in view of the legal experience of the right hon. and learned Gentleman I propose to have it looked at again, to make sure that the intention is, in fact, reflected in the wording.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield, West also asked me a question about paragraph 75 (3) of the Detailed Provisions of the Constitution. As the House will remember, we issued two White Papers, one in more popular terms, a summary, and one giving more detailed provisions. He asked whether the Crown would act on the advice of the Government of Southern Rhodesia, or on the advice of the Government of the United Kingdom when considering whether to approve an amendment to the Constitution, or whether to require an amendment to be referred to a referendum of the racial communities in Southern Rhodesia.
This should be read in conjunction with paragraph 54 of the Summary, which is perhaps in more readable language, and there is also a reference to it in the Report of the Constitutional Conference last January. Both these make it quite clear that the discretion in this matter will rest with the Government of the United Kingdom and not with the Government of Southern Rhodesia; and that it will be on the


advice of the Government of the United Kingdom that the Crown will act on matters of this kind. I think that that meets the hon. Member's point.
I was asked about money Bills, and several hon. Members criticised the fact that money Bills are excluded from the provisions of the Declaration of Rights in respect of discrimination. The main reason for it is a very simple one and a practical one. We had long discussions about this. I was in favour of including everything in the first place, but I was convinced that it was not a practicable proposition.
In a country where there are very wide differences in the standard of living and incomes of the population and those differences are, by and large, reflected in or coincide with the racial differences, it is almost impossible to frame any taxation which will not be in practice discriminatory against Europeans. Anything in the way of Income Tax or Surtax is almost bound to be so. To follow up the right hon. Gentleman's desire that the discrimination should not only apply where the race is mentioned, but where the natural consequences are to prejudice a racial community, any law of that kind—taxing people according to income, which is the natural procedure nowadays—would inevitably be thrown out by any constitutional council or court of law if the discriminatory provision had covered it. I hope that that is a sufficient answer to that question.
The right hon. and learned Member for Newport spoke a good deal about the reserved powers. He said that the British Government possesses, in his own words, "powerful and effective reserve powers which it is giving up without obtaining adequate and alternative safeguards. "The right hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that these powers have never been used, but he said that the fact that they existed had a restraining influence and had the effect of preventing the passage of discriminatory legislation which otherwise would get on to the Statute Book.
I do not say that there may not have been cases where that has happened. All I can say is that that hardly ties up very well with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's complaint that in I960 discriminating legislation of what

he described as the most Draconian kind was passed. Therefore, the deterrent effect of these powers cannot have been very great. As I have explained, these powers have proved most ineffective and both Labour and Conservative Governments have found them, in practice, virtually impossible to use. Some of the most keenly discriminating legislation on the Statute Book of Southern Rhodesia, including the original land apportionment law, and one of the most hated native pass laws, were passed with the approval of a Labour Government.
I am not criticising the party opposite —I make that quite clear. I only quote these examples to support my contention that, in practice the reserved powers have proved unusable, and that the safeguards provided under the new Constitution will be infinitely more effective. Otherwise, I say it frankly, I would not have looked at this, because I recognise my responsibility to see to it that the interests of the African population now, and of the European population at some future date, shall be properly safeguarded.
Criticism was made of the Constitutional Council. We are, of course, now going over the same ground that we have been over in two or three previous debates—everyone recognises that—and the answers are much the same as those given on the previous occasions. The criticism was that the powers of the Constitutional Council are purely advisory. I accept that they are purely advisory; but it is very powerful advice.
Much thought was given to this. Again, I say to the House that I originally started with the idea that there should be some kind of veto on laws by the Constitutional Council, but I was convinced to the contrary by others. No one took a stronger view on this than the African representatives at our constitutional conference, including the members of the National Democratic Party—in fact, I would say more by them than by some of the others, because they included a prominent lawyer.
Those who opposed the idea of a veto by the Constitutional Council did so on the very good grounds that it is a bad thing to duplicate the jurisdiction of the


courts. In the Declaration of Rights we lay down that any law that is racially discriminatory is void, and can be tested by an action in the courts. If, in addition to that, we have another body which can also veto a law, we really begin to get into a most frightful confusion. The Constitutional Council can veto it, but if it has not done so, someone may take it to the courts. We then have two bodies doing the same job. I must say that I was convinced by that argument.
Reference was made—and I do not wish to avoid any difficulties—to what might be called escape clauses. Any one who studies any Declaration of Rights, whether it is the Charter of the United Nations, or of Nigeria, or India, or Ceylon, or Sierre Leone or wherever it may be, will find that it has been quite unavoidable and inevitable to put in certain escape clauses, particularly in regard to conditions of emergency.
After all, we in this country, when there is a threatened railway strike or something like that, have to declare a state of emergency, and ask this House to give us powers to do all sorts of very arbitrary things which run right contrary to the normal provisions of any Declaration of Rights. The Government of a country must, in certain circumstances, take whatever measures are necessary for national defence, or for feeding the population or for maintaining order, and it would be quite intolerable for a Government not to be able to discharge what is their main and basic function.
The right hon. and learned Member for Newport complained that the courts were being asked to perform a political job in assessing whether or not a particular law was discriminatory, and in deciding whether these various qualifying clauses applied or did not apply. Of course, any discussion of a case in a court of law which involves human rights is almost bound to have some kind of political tinge about it, for it will probably involve such things as free speech and freedom of movement. There is almost bound to be some political aspect. This matter was very fully considered. It did not escape our notice, and we came to the conclusion that, if an outside body was to be put over the Legislature—and it is a very serious thing to give an out-

side body power to veto what the elected representatives of the people decide— then it would not be appropriate that it should be an unelected and unprofessional body. It seemed to us that, in the last resort, the matter must, if it was a matter of law, be left to the courts to decide.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: I am sorry to revert to the point which the right hon. Gentleman has just passed, but is he aware that the "escape clauses", as he described them, to which objection is taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport and myself, are set out in Section 11 (4) of the Detailed Provisions, and that we were not complaining in terms of the "escape clauses" in Section 13, which relates to periods of emergency. It is, therefore, no answer to say that one has to deal with the continuation of emergency with special powers and special reservations.

Mr. Sandys: One of those Sections to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred concerns the economic side of Southern Rhodesia. If one suddenly said that all discrimination was to disappear, one would be faced with fearful problems—in European schools, for example. Would one cut off money overnight for these schools and say that everything must be equalised and levelled down instantly? That would be the effect.
One must recognise that there are deep cleavages between the conditions which exist in the African areas and those which exist in the European areas. I am not lagging behind any hon. Member in wanting to see an integrated Southern Rhodesian population, all working together for the common good without distinction of race or colour, but it is unrealistic to imagine that one can overnight sweep away all these differences. There must, therefore, in what is essentially a transitional period, be ways which will allow the courts to interpret these things in a practical and reasonable way.
Several hon. Members said that there must be further progress. They were thinking in particular of the political side. The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East referred in particular to the importance of the franchise. I was asked whether there was much prospect of the franchise being widened


under this new Constitution. The right hon. and learned Member for Newport expressed the view that there was not much prospect. He is usually so clear and logical in argument, but in this Case he said that by giving up the reserve powers the pace of African political progress would be slowed down.
If he would think about it, however, he would see that these powers are powers of veto. By no stretch of the imagination could they be used to widen the franchise or to give increased representation to the Africans in the Legislature. If it was thought that a new law gave insufficient advance, it could only be vetoed, in which case things would remain as they were.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West said that Mr. Garfield Todd had criticised the new Constitution and had said that it did not represent a sufficient political advance. It may be that Mr. Garfield Todd takes that view, but, in fairness to others, it should be remembered that the present franchise which has produced not a single African in the Legislature, was the work of Mr. Garfield Todd. It is always easy when one does not have responsibility to be very free and easy in what one suggests might be done by others.
The right hon. and learned Member for Newport and others complained that the reserve powers of the British Government were being ceded once and for all —those were his words. In theory, he said, they could be taken back, but in practice the possibility of the Parliament at Westminster upsetting a constitution once given was nil. That is broadly true. Once this Parliament has given a constitution which represents an advance towards self-government to any territory in Her Majesty's Dominions, in practice it is not possible to go backwards and to withdraw those powers.
However, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) pointed out, that completely torpedoes the right hon. and learned Gentleman's whole complaint that while this Constitution was a step in the right direction, it did not go far enough. He and his hon. Friends propose to vote against it tonight because it does not go far enough, but everybody recognises that it goes a very long way further than anything thought possible as short a time as a year ago.
The fact that hon. Members opposite will vote against the Constitution tonight implies that Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, if they wanted, could have put forward a Constitution to provide a wider franchise and bigger representation for Africans in the Legislature. That is not the fact. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made it clear that, having nearly 40 years ago given a constitution, which is virtually self-government at home in Southern Rhodesia, subject only to certain veto powers, it would be constitutionally improper and impracticable for us, without the consent of Southern Rhodesia, to impose upon it a new constitution with a much wider representation to Africans, if we thought that that was right and desirable.
The outstanding feature of the new Constitution is that it provides far-reaching advances for the Africans with the full consent of the Europeans. It is an historic and almost unique event that an overseas territory of this kind, with the overwhelming consent of the Europeans, should give a big political advance to the Africans. The extent of the advance was approved by a large majority of the existing electorate. When there is an electorate, it cannot just be brushed aside. Things cannot be decided by an unofficial referendum organised by some outside party. Reference was made to the N.D.P.'s independent referendum, but when there is an electorate set up under a constitution, some attention must be paid to it. It was remarkable that the electorate approved this new Constitution by a large majority. That is a measure of the practical spirit of co-operation between the races which is daily becoming more apparent.

Mr. Marquand: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question he posed earlier? I was eagerly awaiting the answer to his question, what was the hope of further enfranchisement under this Constitution?

Mr. Sandys: I will answer it now. I am going to allow myself to slip over the hour, if that is permissible. It is a great pleasure sometimes to be able to speak without having to look at the clock.
This new Constitution will provide a quarter, or probably rather more than


a quarter, of African seats in the new Legislative Assembly. That is virtually the certain result. There will be about fifteen, and probably another three, making a maximum of eighteen seats at the first election. I think that most people would agree with that.
The European parties have been fairly evenly divided. We talk about fifteen or seventeen African seats and so many European seats, but I cannot believe that that is how the thing will work. The United Federal Party, which is the majority party today, is going to put up a number of African candidates. I cannot believe that during the period ahead any Government in Southern Rhodesia will be able to carry through their policies effectively and maintain a reasonable majority while ignoring the African members of the Assembly. Of course they will need their support.
No doubt the African members will support them against other parties on taxation, road transport, and all sorts of other matters which have nothing to do with race, and from time to time will ask, "What about us? If you want votes in the predominantly African constituencies, you have to do something about the Africans, and they are asking for an enlargement of the franchise."
I believe that it is far better to get progress and a widening of the franchise for the Africans by the exercise of political pressures through the ordinary Parliamentary system and procedures, and the necessity to gain votes, and the necessity to maintain a majority in Parliament, than by having periodical conferences in Lancaster House and by

Division No. 3.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony


Aitken, W. T.
Bryan, Paul
Craddock, Sir Beresford


Allason, James
Buck, Antony
Critchley, Julian


Atkins, Humphrey
Bullard, Denys
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver


Barlow, Sir John
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Crowder, F. P.


Batsford, Brian
Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A. (Saffron Walden)
Cunningham, Knox


Bell, Ronald
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Currie, G. B. H.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Campbell, Cordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Bidgood, John C.
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Doughty, Charles


Bishop, F. P.
Channon, H. P. G.
Drayson, G. B.


Black, Sir Cyril
Chataway, Christopher
du Cann, Edward


Bossom, Clive
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Duncan, Sir James


Bourne-Arton, A.
Clark, William (Nottingham, S)
Eden, John


Box, Donald
Cleaver, Leonard
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Cooper, A. E.
Elliott, R.W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Braine, Bernard
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Errington, Sir Eric


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Costain, A. P.
Fair, John


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Coulson, J. M.
Fell, Anthony

the British Government arranging it all over their heads.

I should like to say something about this question of discriminatory laws, because the general trend of discussion has been rather that any discriminatory law must necessarily be bad for the Africans and ought to be abolished right away. All discriminatory laws are not necessarily unfair, and many of them are specifically designed to protect the interests of the Africans.

Mr. Kona, the President of the Southern Rhodesia African Farmers' Union, said in a speech the other day that the repeal of the Land Apportionment Act—about which we have heard so much—unless accompanied by some new protective measures would be even more disastrous to Africans than its continued implementation; and I believe that there are a number of laws designed for the protection of Africans which it would be disastrous to remove.

A good deal has been said during the debate about the National Democratic Party, and the fact that it is not taking part in the election under the new Constitution—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put:—
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. lain Macleod.]

The House divided: Ayes 223. Noes 159.

Finlay, Graeme
Litchfield, Capt. John
Russell, Ronald


Fisher, Nigel
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
St. Clair, M.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Longden, Gilbert
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan


Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Loveys, Walter H.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Sharples, Richard


Gammans, Lady
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Shaw, M.


Gibson-Watt, David
McAdden, Stephen
Shepherd, William


Glover, Sir Douglas
MacArthur, Ian
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Skeet, T. H. H.


Goodhart, Philip
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)
Smith, Dudley (Br'mf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Goodhew, Victor
McMaster, Stanley R.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)



Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. H.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Green, Alan
Maddan, Martin
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Stoddart-Soott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Grimston, Sir Robert
Marshall, Douglas
Storey, Sir Samuel


Gurden, Harold
Marten, Neil
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Mawby, Ray
Talbot, John E.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tapsell, Peter


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maydort, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Taylor, W.J. (Bradford, N.)


Harvey, Sr Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Mills, Stratton
Temple, John M.


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hastings, Stephen
More, Jaeper (Ludlow)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Morrison, John
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hendry, Forbes
Noble, Michael
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Nugent, Sir Richard
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Hiley, Joseph
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Turner, Colin


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hobson, John
Osbom, John (Hallam)
Vane, W. M. F.


Hocking, Philip N.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Holland, Philip
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Hollingworth, John
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Walder, David


Hopkins, Alan
Peef, John
Walker, Peter


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Percival, Ian
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)

Wall, Patrick


Hughes-Young, Michael
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth



Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pilldington, Sir Richard
Webster, David


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pitman, Sir James
Wells, John (Maidstone)


James, David
Pott, Percivall
Whitelaw, William


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Prior, J. M. L.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Pym, Francis
Wise, A. R.


Kershaw, Anthony
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wolridge-Gordon, Patrick


Kimball, Marcus
Ramsden, James
Woodhouse, C. M.


Kitson, Timothy
Rawlinson, Peter
Woodnutt, Mark


Lambton, Viscount
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Woollam, John


Langford-Holt, J.
Rees, Hugh
Worsley, Marcus


Leather, E. H. C.
Renton, David
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Leavey, J. A.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas



Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Ridsdale, Julian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rippon, Geoffrey
Mr. Edward Wakefield and


Lindsay, Martin
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Mr. Chichester-Clark.


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Roots, William





NOES


Ainsley, William
Diamond, John
Hart, Mrs. Judith


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Donnelly, Desmond
Hayman, F. H.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Driberg, Tom
Healey, Denis


Awbery, Stan
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(Rwly Regis)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Edelman, Maurice
Herbison, Miss Margaret


Baird, John
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)


Bence, Cyril
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Hilton, A. V.


Benson, Sir George
Evans, Albert
Holman, Percy


Blackburn, F.
Finch, Harold
Houghton, Douglas


Blyton, William
Fitch, Alan
Hoy, James H.


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bowles, Frank
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Hunter, A. E.


Boyden, James
Galpern, Sir Myer
Hynd, H. (Acorington)


Brock way, A. Fenner
Ginsburg, David
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, c.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Janner, Sir Barnett


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Gourlay, Harry
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Greenwood, Anthony
Jeger, George


Chetwynd, George
Grey, Charles
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Cliffe, Michael
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Grimond, J.
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Kelley, Richard


Delargy, Hugh
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Kenyon, Clifford







Key, Rt. Hon. G. W.
Owen, Will
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


King, Dr. Horace
Padley, w. E.
Sorensen, R. W.


Lawson, George
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Pargiter, G. A.
Spriggs, Leslie


Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Parker, John
Steele, Thomas


Lipton, Marcus
Pavitt, Laurence
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Peart, Frederick
Stonehouse, John


MacColl, James
pentland, Norman
Stones, William


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Prentice, R. E.
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Thornton, Ernest


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Probert, Arthur
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Wade, Donald


Mapp, Charles
Randall, Harry
Wainwright, Edwin


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Rankin, John
Warbey, William


Marsh, Richard
Redhead, E. C.
Weitzman, David


Mason, Roy
Reid, William
White, Mrs. Eirene


Mendelson, J. J.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Whitlock, William


Millan, Bruce
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Willey, Frederick


Milne, Edward J.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Mitchison, G. R.
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Moody, A. S.
Ross, William
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Morris, John
Short, Edward
Winterbottom, R. E.


Moyle, Arthur
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Mulley, Frederick
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Woof, Robert


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Sherrington, Arthur
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Oliver, G. H.
Slater, Mrs Harriet (Stoke, N.)



Oram, A. E.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Oswald, Thomas
Small, William
Mr. Charles A. Howell and




Mr. McCann.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA (CONSTITUTION) BILL

Question again proposed,That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.

Mr. Sandys: I was just saying that a number of hon. Members have referred at some length to the opposition of the National Democratic Party and I thought that I would say a word about this.
It is true, of course, that the N.D.P., which at first supported the new Constitution, afterwards repudiated it. It is also true that it is probably the largest all-African party in Southern Rhodesia. But it should not be assumed that the views which it expresses are necessarily those of the majority of the African inhabitants of Southern Rhodesia.
Large sections of the population in the tribal areas are not attached to any political party. The two multi-racial parties—the United Federal Party and the Central African Party—both enjoy appreciable African support. It was significant at the last Congress of the United Federal Party in Southern Rhodesia that nearly one-third of the delegates were African, and there is no doubt that the very liberal attitude of the United Federal Party is attracting increasing African support into its ranks.
Sir Edgar Whitehead the other day published figures which are extremely remarkable and which showed that the

membership of his party in Harari had risen from 40 to 500 since the announcement of the new Constitution last February. That is particularly striking for the reason that Harari, which is a purely African town, was one of the largest centres of opposition to the Government only a year ago.
I am not seeking to minimise the importance of the N.D.P. I have always listened to its views with great sympathy and I am anxious to keep in touch with it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East referred to the fact that my Under-Secretary received a deputation from that party on a certain occasion. That was because I was out of the country. Had I been here I would have received them myself.
I believe, however, that we should not minimise the importance of the other parties in Southern Rhodesia which are making an appeal to both races. The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East expressed regret at the decision of the N.D.P. to boycott the elections. I agree with him, and I sincerely hope that between now and the elections all parties will decide to put up candidates, which is surely in the best interests of Southern Rhodesia and its future development. The political parties, whatever their differences, should seek to achieve their aims through democratic political channels.
This is the aim and purpose of the new Constitution. It has been framed in that spirit and will be implemented in that way, and I therefore appeal to all citizens of Southern Rhodesia of all races to accept the new Constitution in

this spirit and to make the most of the widening opportunities for progress and co-operation which it opens up for them.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 156.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Woodnutt, Mark



Wise, A. R.
Woollam, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Worsley, Marcus
Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. Noble


Woodhouse, C. M.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)





NOES


Ainsley, William
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Pargiter, G. A.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Parker, John


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hilton, A. V.
Pavitt, Laurence


Awbery, Stan
Holman, Percy
Peart, Frederick


Bacon, Miss Alice
Houghton, Douglas
Pentland, Norman


Baird, John
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Bence, Cyril
Hoy, James H.
Prentice, R. E.


Benson, Sir George
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Probert, Arthur


Blyton, William
Hunter, A. E.
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Randall, Harry


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Rankin, John


Bowles, Frank
Jay, Rt. Hon, Douglas
Redhead, E. C.


Boyden, James
Jeger, George
Reid, William


Brockway, A. Fenner
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Butter, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Chetwynd, George
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Cliffe, Michael
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Ross, William


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kelley, Richard
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kenyon, Clifford
Silverman, Sydney (Netson)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
King, Dr. Horace
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Delargy, Hugh
Lawson, George
Small, William


Diamond, John
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Donnelly, Desmond
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N,)
Sorensen, R. W.


Driberg, Tom
Lipton, Marcus
Soskice, Rt. Hon, Sir Frank


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Mabon, Dr. j. Dickson
Spriggs, Leslie


Edelman, Maurice
McCann, John
Steele, Thomas


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacColl, James
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Edwards, Waiter (Stepney)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stonehouse, John


Evans, Albert
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Stones, William


Finch, Harold
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Fitch, Alan
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Foot, Miehael (Ebbw Vale)
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thornton, Ernest


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mapp, Charles
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H, A,
Wade, Donald


Galpern, Sir Myer
Marsh, Richard
Wainwright, Edwin


Ginsburg, David
Mendelson, J.J.
Warbey, William


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Millan, Bruce
Weitzman, David


Gourlay, Harry
Milne, Edward J.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Greenwood, Anthony
Mitchison, G. R.
Whitlock, William


Grey, Charles
Moody, A. S.
Willey, Frederick


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Morris, John
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Griffiths, w. (Exchange)
Moyle, Arthur
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Grimond, J.
Mulley, Frederick
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oliver, G. H.
Woodbum, Rt. Hon. A.


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Oram, A. E.
Woof, Robert


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Oswald, Thomas
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hayman, F. H,
Owen, Will



Healey, Denis
Padley, W. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, w.)
Mr. Irving and Mr. Short.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

Committee Tomorrow.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

Committee Tomorrow.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 {Money Committees).

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue certain expiring laws, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such expenses as may be occasioned by the continuance until the thirty-first day of


March, nineteen hundred and sixty-three, of the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, 1943, the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, and Part II of the Licensing Act, 1953, being expenses which under any Act are to be provided out of such moneys.—[Sir E. Boyle.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES

Select Committee appointed to examine the Reports and Accounts of the Nationalised Industries established by Statute whose controlling Boards are appointed by Ministers of the Crown and whose annual receipts are not wholly or

mainly derived from moneys provided by Parliament or advanced from the Exchequer:

Mr. Austen Albu, Sir John Barlow, Mr. William Blyton, Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Mr. Alan Fitch, Mr. Arthur Holt, Sir Donald Kaberry, Colonel Lancaster, Sir Richard Nugent, Mr. John Peyton, Mr. Ernest Popplewell, Mr. Thomas Steele, and Dame Irene Ward:

Power to send for persons, papers and records:

Power to report from time to time:

Five to be the Quorum.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

GENOCIDE CONVENTION

Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. E. Wakefield.]

10.27 p.m.

Sir Barnett Janner: I am raising the matter of the Convention on Genocide again because of the deep concern felt that a decision on this important problem should not continue to be deferred indefinitely.
The United Nations Association and a vast number of other organisations connected with the United Nations promoting the highest humanitarian ideals, including the Board of Deputies of British Jews, which is the representative body of British Jewry, are shocked that Her Majesty's Government have not yet acceded to the Convention. Well might they be, as the Convention is designed to crush the intentional destruction of national, racial or religious ethnic groups.
This crime of genocide was defined some years ago by Dr. Raphael Lemkin, the whole of whose family was exterminated by the Nazis in Nazi Germany, as one which was deliberately planned as a State policy and carried out with every resource of science and complete absence of humanity.
Neither animals nor uneducated savages,
said W. J. Dignaum, Australia's representative to the General Assembly in 1948,
would deliberately plan with the fiendish and cold-blooded cruelty which accompanies modern examples of genocide. Hardened soldiers, accustomed to the callousness and brutalities of war, were overwhelmed when they witnessed for the first time the physical deterioration of some of those victims still living after this crime had been perpetrated against them.
Genocide has been committed through the ages,
said Begum Ikramullah of Pakistan at the Assembly session in 1948:
While it has always shocked the conscience of mankind, nothing has been done to punish the crime. The discoveries of science have put such weapons in the hands of men that genocide today can be swift and terrible indeed. Therefore, such a convention became imperative and its acceptance should not be delayed.

And I underline, "should not be delayed". It is, however, eleven years since, in reply to a Question by me, the Under-Secretary of State at that time said:
The question is still under examination. No decision has yet been reached since there are a great many legal difficulties still to be solved."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1950;Vol.472, c. 1545.]
When as recently as 23rd October, 1961, I asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he had yet decided to accede to the Convention he still could not give me an affirmative reply, and did not even indicate when a decision would be reached.
I am well aware that adherence to the Convention may require the introduction of legislation and that there are various problems involved, but these problems have not prevented 65 countries from ratifying or acceding to the Convention to date, as the Lord Privy Seal himself informed us on 23rd October last. More States have supported this Convention than any other United Nations convention. Among the States are several of our fellow members of the Commonwealth and many of our West European and Scandinavian friends with legal and democratic ideas similar to our own. If they have found it possible to come in, why are we holding back? Surely if the systems of law which prevail in those countries, particularly in the countries in our own Commonwealth, can be arranged in such a way as to enable the Convention to be accepted, there cannot be any reason at all why we should not do the same.
We have been told that the right of political system may be impinged upon. We have no wish to do such a thing. The intention is not to refuse asylum to genuine political or other refugees or to persons fleeing from genocide, but to take action against those responsible for genocide. It is not intended that our doors should be closed to victims of oppression, but to provide a means at last for international action to be taken against persons guilty of mass murder and oppression.
I know, of course, that the Lord Privy Seal and the hon. Gentleman who is to reply to this debate realise and understand the enormity of the crime with which we are dealing, but I point out to them that under existing laws a person


against whom a prima faciecase of guilt for certain crimes, some of them comparatively minor, can be established may be extradited. A man accused of one murder may be hunted by Interpol and police forces all over the world, but a person guilty of mass murder and genocide can go free. Is this logical? Is this justice? Of course it is not. This is a serious anomaly in our law which must be put right.
Reference has been made to the problem of Article VII of the Convention, which states:
Genocide and the other acts enumerated in Article III shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition.
But it further states that
The Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force.
Therefore, the granting of extradition is to be "in accordance with their laws and treaties in force" so that, in accordance with existing practice, with regard to requests for extradition, British courts would have the power in any instance to ensure that a proper case for extradition had been presented. Moreover, according to the Convention, persons charged with genocide are not necessarily to be tried in the territory in which the act was committed. Article VI provides for trial by such
international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted such jurisdiction.
Further, an additional safeguard was introduced, at the request of the British representatives themselves during the very lengthy and careful drafting procedure on the Convention, by the provision of Article IX, which states:
Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application, or fulfilment for the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article III, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.
Action against acts punishable under the Convention might in certain circumstances not entail extradition or trial by an international court but could and should be dealt with by the courts of this country.
The purpose of the Convention is not merely the negative one of punishing

persons guilty of genocide but the positive one of deterring persons from attempting to carry out or incite to the commission of genocide. Article III includes among the punishable acts
conspiracy to commit genocide; direct and public incitement to commit genocide".
It is the prevention of such horrible activities which is the main objective of the Convention.
We have been told that such activities are inconceivable in this country. Who thought that they were conceivable in Germany before the Hitlerite movement became all-powerful? Many people are forgetful or unaware of the enormities practised by the Hitler regime. They were so terrible and the number of innocent men, women and children so great that many decent persons are psychologically unable to appreciate their horror and subsequently repress all knowledge of them in an attempt to ignore dreadful realities.
It is paradoxical that it is often the most humane among us who are unable to understand the hatreds that can arise in abnormal persons and the great danger that in certain circumstances, as we have seen, that ordinary human beings can be infected with these obsessive hatreds by vile and scurrilous propaganda. We are justly proud of the right of freedom of speech in this country, but freedom has its attendant dangers. Under the existing law, a false statement vilifying not identifiable individuals but groups or classes of persons distinguishable by race, colour or creed, cannot form the subject of civil proceedings for libel or slander. And even if such statements amount to the crime of seditious libel they can be prosecuted in our courts only in the most flagrant cases.
I have seen journals and other publications circulating freely in this country today which advocate in terms similar to those of the Nazi gutter Press hatred of Jews and coloured persons. Some of them are published by Hungarians resident in this country—people to whom we gave asylum and for whom I, among very many others, made an appeal to the House and the country that they should be admitted—and are spread both here and abroad, the most noxious poison propaganda against a law-abiding section of British citizens.
I maintain that such publications are public incitements to commit genocide, and as such, although not punishable under existing law, would be punishable under the Genocide Convention. One of these publications which I have seen goes as far as to advocate support for the blood libel which has been proved time after time to be false and a pernicious attack on Jewish people and utterly unjustified and scandalous. But under the law as it stands at present we are not in a position to do anything about it.
There is another point which I should like to make. Many of us are deeply offended by the granting of training facilities for German forces in this country. If it had been possible for me to be present at the time of the last debate on this I should certainly have stated my complete opposition to that, as the House is well aware. I later asked a Question in the House as to what could be done if one of the German officers happened to have been a Nazi and could be proved to have participated in crimes of this nature. I was told that we could not stop any of the German soldiers from being admitted.
At present we have no means of ensuring that among these forces there may not be individuals who were violent Nazis or members of the S.S. and who perpetrated the massacres of innocent human beings. Not having adhered to the Genocide Convention, we cannot take steps against such a member of the German forces in this country whose very presence here would be a danger and a defilement. That a very careful watch must be kept on possible dangers in Germany today is shown by the astonishing agreement just repotted— either today or yesterday—to have been reached by the two parts of the new German Government to improve the status of former Nazis and members of the S.S.
No one can say that the spirit which led to genocide is entirely dead in the country in which it took such a terrible form so recently when such a neo-Nazi policy can emerge. There are in various countries throughout the world, as the hon. Gentleman will undoubtedly know, people who are utilising moneys which have been taken from the victims in order

to encourage the spreading of neo-Nazism and this racial hatred around the world.
I appeal once again that all steps be taken without further delay for the accession of Her Majesty's Government to this all-important Convention. It is not the difficulties of adherence but the advantages thereof which should be the deciding factor. As I have already indicated, these difficulties have been overcome by many of our Commonwealth, West European and Scandinavian friends. Almost eleven years have elapsed since the Convention came into force. A further year must not be allowed to pass by.
Our continued absence from among the supporters of the Convention is a cause of serious misinterpretation and disillusionment among those who look to this country to give moral leadership to the world. This year we are commemorating the centenary of that great Norwegian, Nansen, who achieved the impossible as an explorer and in the international succour of refugees. May I make this appeal to the Joint Under-Secretary of State? It would be a fitting gesture on the part of Her Majesty's Government to mark this centenary by action to prevent the human misery which Nansen abhorred through a measure which has been proved possible—accession to the Genocide Convention.

10.45 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas): The hon. Member has raised this subject in the House, both in Questions and in debate, on many occasions. The depth of his feelings in this matter is not only wholly understandable to us but also appreciated by us. We certainly admire his persistence. Of course, we all view genocide with the greatest repugnance and horror. We accept the view that it constitutes an international crime of the most evil and odious character, and we are anxious to play our full part in its suppression.
The purpose of the Convention on Genocide is to outlaw genocide internationally. With that purpose we are in complete agreement. That is why we voted for the Convention in 1948. But when we did so, we had no illusions about the complicated problems that


might face us if we acceded in full to the Convention—problems such as the difficulties which might arise regarding changes in our domestic law and our position on the long established and traditional right exercised by this country to grant political asylum to persons charged with political offences. We made our position clear on these things at the United Nations before we voted for the Convention.
All this is past history, but the difficulties we anticipated then were found to be real. When the hon. Member raised this subject on the Motion for the Adjournment as recently as 5th June, my predecessor, now the Minister of State, gave him an assurance that the whole question of whether or not the Government were able to resolve these difficulties and become a party to the Convention was being examined afresh. I would like to repeat that assurance, and to tell him that this is being done and that, although the difficulties are not easy to resolve, progress has been made.
I do not quarrel with the hon. Member when he says that it is a long time since the Convention was signed, but I am sure that he will agree that the important thing in the long run is to do what is right in this matter. We have every hope that a decision will soon be reached.
The hon. Member is a lawyer. He appreciates that these difficulties exist. He naturally feels that they should be overcome, and thinks that they can be overcome. I hope he is right. This is That we are examining.
During the debate on 5th June, he made the point that no question of international law should be raised if, in acceding to the Convention, we were to make a reservation which would safeguard the United Kingdom's position on the question of political asylum. With respect to him, this is not how we see the problem. I agree that the International Court of Justice, by a vote of seven to five, in 1951, advised that reservations can be made to the Convention provided they are compatible with its purpose. This, in theory, leaves it open to the Government to accede to the Convention with the type of reservation which I think he had in mind at the time. But making a reservation is not

necessarily the last step in the story. An objection by another State to the reservation might result in the Convention not being in force between the United Kingdom and the objecting State.
We come back, therefore, to the kernel of the difficulty confronting us. How can we accede to the Convention without reservations and at the same time give effect to its broad provisions as part of the criminal law of this country without derogating from the traditional right to give asylum to political refugees seeking it here? This latter point is particularly important in connection with Article VII of the Convention, referred to by the hon. Member. The dilemma must be resolved before we can take a decision to become party to the Convention, because, as we have frequently said, the Government cannot undertake international obligations unless our law enables them to be honoured.
It may help to illustrate some of the difficulties which face us in framing the necessary legislation if I read out in full, as the hon. Gentleman did not, the definition of genocide in Article II of the Convention. It is defined as
… any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b)Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c)Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e)Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
The hon. Member will appreciate that some at least of these crimes are defined with considerably less precision than is the practice in the definition of criminal offences in Acts of Parliament.
A further requirement in the Convention, which the hon. Member mentioned, is that its signatories are required by Article III to make punishable, not only genocide itself, but also conspiracy to commit genocide and complicity in genocide; and "complicity" is, of course, a very vague term in law. The difficulties in giving effect to such requirements as these in our criminal law are very real, and will be all too apparent to the House.
Again, with specific reference to Article VII, to which the hon. Member referred, this presents a more serious question of principle in so far as it affects this country's right to grant asylum. Examples were given to the House by my hon. Friend in the previous debate on the subject on 5th June. A number of possible situations were postulated where the surrender of a fugitive on the ground of having committed genocide was demanded under the terms of the Convention, and where we might well take the view that the offence in question was political. We might, however, be obliged to comply with the request for extradition if a prima faciecase of crime within the very wide terms of the Convention were made out.
It might, on one view of Article VII, be held that it would not be open to the courts, or the Home Secretary, to refuse extradition on the grounds that the offence was one of a political character, even if those demanding extradition did so for obvious political reasons. If this is the correct interpretation of the requirements of the Convention—and it is this aspect to which we are now giving careful study—the House will, I am sure, agree that we should exercise great care.
We should be chary of taking any step which might deprive an accused person of the right in any circumstances to claim the protection of the Extradition Acts against surrender for a political crime where he was charged with an offence coming within the very wide definition of genocide in the Convention. I need hardly add that there would, of course, be no question of granting asylum to anyone who committed genocide in the sense that we have come to know that crime as a result of the appalling deeds of the last war.
These are an indication of the complex issues to be resolved. Again, I will not join issue with the hon. Gentleman when he says that we seem to be taking a very long time to make up our minds. But this should not be construed as a mere process of procrastination. I can assure him, on the contrary, that we are doing our very best to reach a speedy conclusion.
Perhaps I may comment on one or two of the hon. Member's remarks about the effect of our acceding to the Convention.

It has been urged that by our becoming a party we would change the situation in this country. I assure the House that, although genocide as such may not be punishable under our law, most of the offences dealt with in the Convention are already criminal offences under our criminal law and that it is in the power of the courts in this country to bring to trial and punish persons who may commit such offences.
I am sure that the hon. Member will accept that the difficulties which I have mentioned are not just mere quibbling. They are matters which cause deep concern and, for the reasons I have outlined, they compel us to take every care before coming to a decision. The hon. Member mentioned the many countries —some 65—who have become party to the Convention. We are urged that because of this it is time that the name of the United Kingdom was included. But I must emphasise that it is United Kingdom practice to ensure that, when becoming party to a convention, British law is brought into line with the provisions of the convention. I accept that the hon. Member has been very patient in this matter, but I ask him to be patient for a little longer.
I repeat that we are doing our best to press ahead on this matter. I am grateful for the way in which the hon. Member has presented his case this evening and I can assure him, as did my hon. Friend some weeks ago, that we have all the points he has so eloquently urged very much in mind. The House will be informed as soon as we reach a decision and, if that decision is that we should accede to the Convention, the necessary legislation will be brought in as soon as the legislative programme permits.

Sir B, Janner: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to say that the Government will consult members of the Commonwealth who have acceded to the Convention and whose laws and outlooks are similar to our own? As a lawyer, I understand the position as he has presented it and I accept the difficulties, but I should have thought that they could have been resolved after eleven years.
On the question of extradition, there is an international court referred to which can try these matters without


having to send a person back to his country after he has sought asylum here because of his political convictions.

Mr. Thomas: I am sorry, but there is no such international court. The hon. Gentleman will realise that setting up an international penal court is an extremely difficult exercise. Extreme difficulty has been found by those who have been attempting to do so. Until there is an international court, the ques-

tion of asylum is extremely important. That is the situation at the moment. On the subject of consultation, I can assure the hon. Member that those who advise us at the Foreign Office will go into every possible matter in assessing the legal difficulties with which we are faced.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Eleven o'clock.